Ex Parte FordDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201311734723 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/734,723 04/12/2007 Michael Brent Ford MBF1001 1584 59911 7590 09/13/2013 MITCH HARRIS, LLC - GENERAL P.O. BOX 7998 ATHENS, GA 30604 EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL BRENT FORD ____________ Appeal 2011-010864 Application 11/734,723 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-22. App. Br. 3. Claims 2 and 11 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2011-010864 Application 11/734,723 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A system for measuring low-flow leaks in a building water distribution system, comprising: at least one electrically controllable valve for controlling at least a portion of said building water distribution system that services multiple appliances or fixtures; an electronic pressure gauge for determining a water pressure within said building water distribution system; a motion sensor within the building for providing a determination of a presence of human activity; a control circuit coupled to said electrically controllable valve for closing said electrically controllable valve to measure the low flow leaks only when said motion sensor indicates that there is no human activity, and further coupled to said electronic pressure gauge, wherein said control circuit monitors an output of said electronic pressure gauge to detect a drop in pressure when said electrically controllable valve is closed and generates an indication of a potential water leak in conformity with said detected drop in pressure, and whereby the measuring of the low-flow leaks is performed while human activity is not detected, so that interference with water use within the building is reduced. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kates ‘977 (US 2006/0059977 A1; pub. Mar. 23, 2006) and Ford (US 2004/0134545 A1; pub. Jul. 15, 2004). 2. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ford and Kates ‘977. 3. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kates ‘977, Ford, and Ghertner (US 2004/0139788 A1; pub. Jul. 22, 2004). Appeal 2011-010864 Application 11/734,723 3 4. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ford, Kates ‘977, and Ghertner. 5. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kates ‘977, Ford, and Wagner (US 2002/0023481 A1; pub. Feb. 28, 2002). 6. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ford, Kates ‘977, and Wagner. 7. Claims 8, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kates ‘977, Ford, and Kates ‘008 (US 2006/0007008 A1; pub. Jan. 12, 2006). 8. Claims 8, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ford, Kates ‘977, and Kates ‘008 (US 2006/0007008 A1; pub. Jan. 12, 2006). 9. Claims 6, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kates ‘977, Ford, and Horne (US 6,612,323 B1; Sep. 2, 2003). 10. Claims 6, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ford, Kates ‘977, and Horne. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 22 as unpatentable over Kates ‘977 and Ford Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 22 as a group. App. Br. 8-11. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 22 stand or fall with claim 1. Appeal 2011-010864 Application 11/734,723 4 The Examiner found that Kates ‘977 discloses a system that measures low-flow leaks in a water distribution system and includes an electrically controllable valve 802, an electronic pressure gauge 804, and a control circuit 202 that is coupled to the valve 802 and gauge 804 to operate the valve and monitor a drop in pressure when the valve is closed and indicate a potential water leak. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Kates ‘977 does not disclose a motion sensor to determine a presence of human activity. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Ford discloses a system with a motion sensor 22, that determines human activity in a building and a control circuit 30, that closes a valve when the motion sensor 22 indicates, that there is no human activity or motion detected and determined that it would have been obvious to modify Kates ‘977 to include such a motion sensor to provide a “wake-up signal” for the leak measuring test of Kates ‘977 so that the electrically controllable valve is closed to measure low flow leaks only when the motion sensor indicates there is no human activity to prevent interference with water use during low flow leak measurement. Ans. 4-5, 15-16. Appellant argues that Ford does not disclose measuring low-flow leaks by detecting a pressure drop and indicating a potential water leak in conformity with the detected drop in pressure but only measures flow with a flow meter and does not close a valve when measuring the flow but instead closes an electrically operable valve to protect the building from potential leaks when it is unoccupied. App. Br. 9-10. This argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s finding that Kates ‘977 detects flow leaks based on a pressure drop and can be modified to include a motion sensor of Ford as a wake up signal for performing leak detection. See Ans. 3-4, 14-16. Appeal 2011-010864 Application 11/734,723 5 Appellant asserts that Kates ‘977 detects an increase in the differential pressure across an electrically controllable valve and does not monitor drops in pressure to detect a leak but detects when building pressure falls below the pressure in the water service line of a water utility. App. Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive as claim 1 calls for an electronic pressure gauge for determining a water pressure in the building water distribution system and a control circuit that “monitors an output of said electronic pressure gauge to detect a drop in pressure.” Kates ‘977 discloses a controller 803 that obtains sensor data from a sensor 808 when the valve 802 is closed and determines if there is a leak based on whether a drop in pressure is measured by the sensor 808. Kates ‘977, paras. [0066], [0070]. Thus, Kates ‘977 detects a drop in pressure when the valve is closed. The pressure drop is based on a comparison of water pressure in the building to pressure of the water supplied to the building by a utility company. See Ans. 15-16. Appellant further argues that Kates ‘977 discloses metering devices used by utility companies rather than devices for a building where motion sensor information might be used as disclosed in Ford. App. Br. 10. As a result Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not incorporate Ford’s motion sensor for preventing damage to an unoccupied building into Kates ‘977, because the electrically controlled valve of Kates ‘977 is controlled by a control module in an automatic meter reading system of a utility company and the shut off valve is closed in response to a command from an external source under control of a utility. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant also asserts that Ford’s motion sensor is used to turn off the water supply to a building when the building is unoccupied or when occupants are not active and Kates ‘977 and Ford, include no suggestion of communication between Appeal 2011-010864 Application 11/734,723 6 the system of Ford and a metering device of Kates ‘977 to provide access to motion sensor information of human activity in a building. Reply Br. 4-6. These arguments are not persuasive because Kates ‘977 discloses a system that provides leak detection for electronic, water, and gas metering in homes and buildings and a control system (ETR 200) on a meter at a building so a building owner or manager can collect meter data on a regular basis. Kates ‘977, paras. [0002-0008], [0031]. Nor is this argument persuasive of error in the Examiner’s finding that Kates ‘977 closes an electrically controllable valve 802 to measure low-flow leaks at a wake up signal and that it would have been obvious to modify Kates ‘977 with Ford’s motion sensor to provide a wake-up signal for leak test measuring based on an absence of detected motion in a building. See Ans. 15-16; see also Kates, para. [0041]; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007) (the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (the test for obviousness is whether an invention is rendered obvious by teachings of the prior art as a whole, not whether the features of references can be combined physically). Ford discloses the use of valves to detect very small flow rates associated with small leaks as exceptionally useful in embodiments of the present invention. Ford, paras. [0020-0023]. Ford closes an electrically controllable valve when a motion sensor indicates an absence of occupants in a building and provides alarms for leak detection. Ford, para. [0029]; figs. 3, 5. The Examiner proposes to include this feature in Kates ‘977 to close the electrically controllable valve of Kates ‘977 when no motion is detected and then perform low flow leak testing, as Kates ‘977 teaches based on such detection as a wake up signal. Appeal 2011-010864 Application 11/734,723 7 We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 22 as being unpatentable over Kates ‘977 and Ford. Because we sustain this rejection, we do not address the alternate rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Ford and Kates ‘977. Obviousness rejections 3.-8. Appellant has not presented any arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 13, 18, and 20 as set forth in rejections 3.-8. supra. See App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 6-7. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any arguments as to those rejections and we summarily affirm the rejections of those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 6, 14, and 21 as unpatentable over Kates ‘977, Ford, and Horne Claims 6, 14, and 21 depend from claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively and recite that the system of claims 6 and 21 further comprises a current sensor for sensing activation of at least one appliance that uses water or the method of claim 14 further comprises sensing activation of at least one appliance that uses water by measuring an electrical current consumed by the appliance. The Examiner found that Horne discloses an electrically operated solenoid that corresponds to the claimed current sensor. Ans. 13. Appellant argues that the solenoids of Horne are operated by applying an operating current and do not sense activation of the appliance as recited in claims 6, 14, and 21. App. Br. 13. We agree. The Examiner’s finding that Horne both opens and closes the valve with a solenoid does not establish that the solenoid measures or senses an electrical current that is supplied to an appliance or other device. See Ans. 13. Horne opens and closes solenoids 19, 21 to allow hot or cold water to flow into a washing machine. Horne, Appeal 2011-010864 Application 11/734,723 8 col. 2, l. 63 to col. 3, l. 5. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 14, and 21 as unpatentable over Kates ‘977, Ford, and Horne. The Examiner found that Horne discloses this feature in rejecting claims 6, 14, and 21 as unpatentable over Ford, Kates ‘977, and Horne. Thus, we do not sustain that rejection either. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 17 as unpatentable over Kates ‘977 and Ford and all of the rejections of claims 4, 5, 8, 13, 16, 18, and 20. We REVERSE the rejections of claims 6, 14, and 21. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation