Ex Parte Faltesek et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 12, 2010

10716157 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 12, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/716,157 11/18/2003 Anthony E. Faltesek H0005694
8364/90288(1190)
5301
24628 7590 10/12/2010
Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LEE, PING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANTHONY E. FALTESEK
and PATRICK S. GONIA
____________________

Appeal 2009-010004
Application 10/716,157
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON and
ALLEN R. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-010004
Application 10/716,157

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 16, 25, and 27-29. Claims 3-5, 12, 13, 15, 17-24, 26,
and 30-33 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellants, the invention is a system and method for
monitoring regions for alarm conditions such as fires based on audio indicia
of the alarm or fire condition (Spec. 1).
Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a plurality of audio modules, at least one module of the
plurality of audio modules including at least one audio output
transducer and at least one audio input transducer;
a common control unit in communication with the
plurality of audio modules;
an output device coupled to the control unit, the control
unit presents at least audio information received at various of
the modules, via the output device, with the presented audio
indicative of the presence of individuals or selected
environmental conditions in the vicinity of the respective
module; and
which includes at least one of circuitry or software to
automatically analyze audio of characteristic sounds emitted by
a fire and received at the control unit with respect to at least one
fire signature, to establish if an alarm condition is present in the
vicinity of at least one of the modules.

Appeal 2009-010004
Application 10/716,157

3
Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
YOKOI US 4,709,330 Nov. 24, 1987
MARKOWITZ US 6,295,346 B1 Sep. 25, 2001
APPLEBY GB 2299668 A Oct. 9, 1996

Rejection(s) and Appellants’ Contentions
1. At pages 8-9 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-11, 25, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yokoi and
Appleby because:
(A) Yokoi fails to teach or suggest “sounds emitted by a fire.”
(B) Appleby does not operate in the same way as the claimed
invention.
(C) Appleby teaches away from the claimed use of “characteristic
sounds emitted by a fire.”
2. At pages 9-10 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 14, 16, 28, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yokoi,
Appleby, and Markowitz because:
(A) Markowitz is limited to speech recognition.
(B) Yokoi and Appleby fail to teach any analysis of “characteristic
sounds emitted by a fire.”
Appeal 2009-010004
Application 10/716,157

4
3. At pages 10-13 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend that a
prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
Issue on Appeal
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 16,
25, and 27-29 as being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 16,
25, and 27-29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 16, 25, and 27-29 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 16, 25, and 27-29 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2009-010004
Application 10/716,157

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

KIS

Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606