Ex Parte Gonia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

12695736 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017)

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.
12/695,736 01/28/2010 Patrick Gonia H0024310 4341-23600 8518
14941 7590 08/01/2017
HONEYWELL/CONLEY ROSE
Honeywell International Inc
115 Tabor Road
PO Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
TERRELL, EMILY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICK GONIA and SOUMITRI KOLAVENNU
Appeal 2016-005994
Application 12/695,7361
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—28, all the pending claims in the
present application. (Appeal Br. 6.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. (Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal 2016-005994
Application 12/695,736
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a portable detector to measure a
potentially hazardous condition in a location and to store information
regarding the condition and the location of the detector. (Spec. Tflf 2, 9-12,
Abstract.) To determine location information, the detector may measure
received signal strength level of radio frequency (RF) packets received from
location anchors. {Id. at || 12, 57.)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with italicization added for emphasis, is
illustrative:
1. A method for reporting the detection of a potentially
hazardous condition, the method comprising:
preconfiguring data into a portable detector, the data
comprising at least one of a detector device ID;
measuring, by the portable detector, data related to a
presence or an absence of the potentially hazardous
condition in a location;
measuring, by the portable detector, information
including the received RF signal strength level from
RF signals received from a plurality of location
anchors at the location, wherein the plurality of
location anchors are stationary,
sending the data related to the presence or absence of the
potentially hazardous condition and the information
including the received RF signal strength level from
the RF signals received from the plurality of
location anchors at the location to at least one
server via a location anchor of the plurality of
location anchors that includes an access point
function, wherein the at least one server comprises
pre-configured location anchor data comprising
geographic coordinates for each location anchor of
2
Appeal 2016-005994
Application 12/695,736
the plurality of location anchors and an RF
transmission power for each location anchor of the
plurality of location anchors;
estimating a geographic position of the location based on
the information including the received RF signal
strength level from RF signals received from the
plurality of location anchors at the first location, the
geographic coordinates for each location anchor of
the plurality of location anchors, and the RF
transmission power for each location anchor of the
plurality of location anchors; and
recording the estimated geographic position and the data
related to the presence or the absence of the
potentially hazardous condition in the estimated
geographic position in a database associated with
the at least one server for subsequent retrieval,
display, and review for use in detecting the presence
or the absence of the potentially hazardous
condition.
Rejections
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1—5 and 22—28 are rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the
inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention. (Final Action 3.)
Claims 1, 2, 4—9, 12—15, 17, 18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 7,091,852 B2; iss.
Aug. 15, 2006) (hereinafter “Mason”), Lee et al. (US 7,191,097 Bl; iss.
Mar. 13, 2007) (hereinafter “Lee”), and Laird et al. (US 7,221,928 B2; iss.
May 22, 2007) (hereinafter “Laird”). (Final Action 4—17.)
Claims 3, 10, 11, and 26—28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mason, Lee, Laird, and Kates et al. (US 7,528,711 B2; iss.
3
Appeal 2016-005994
Application 12/695,736
May 5, 2009) (hereinafter “Kates”). (Final Action 17—21.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mason, Lee, Laird, Kates, Amidi, (US 7,688,198 B2; iss. Mar. 30, 2010),
and Schlager et al. (US 6,198,390 Bl; iss. Mar. 6, 2001) (hereinafter
“Schlager”). (Final Action 21—22.)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mason, Lee, Laird, and Bieback (US 5,060,308; iss. Oct. 22, 1991). (Final
Action 23.)
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of location
anchors are stationary;” however, in the original disclosure there
is no statement as to the mobility or immobility of the location
anchors, the specification simply states that the location anchors
are wireless and provide their transmit power, identifications and
coordinate data (see paragraphs [0053]—[0061], [0073], [0083],
[0085], [0087]), and there is no disclosure reflecting, requiring,
or asserting that the location anchors are motile or immotile.
Therefore, the claimed limitation “wherein the plurality of
location anchors are stationary,” is being considered new matter
by the Examiner.
(Final Action 3.) The Examiner finds that the appropriate definition of
anchor is “something that serves to hold an object firmly” and that “even
holding an object firmly can be done while motile.” (Final Action 27—28;
see also Answer 12—17.) The Examiner provides the example of a mobile
moving entity which provides its location via GPS calculation. Such a entity
would be motile, and the Examiner finds that such a device would serve as a
location anchor. (Id. at 15.)
4
Appeal 2016-005994
Application 12/695,736
However, we agree with the Appellants that:
[T]he claims do not recite an “anchor” alone, but rather recite a
“location anchor.” In the context of the present application, a
location anchor holds a “location” and therefore cannot be motile
while providing a fixed point for determining a geographic
position. This point is further noted in the context of the
Application which states that the position information for the
location anchors is pre-configured, and therefore cannot
change [.]
(Appeal Br. 15.) We agree with Appellants that, in the absence of additional
evidence regarding movement of location anchors, that an anchor that
“serves to hold” a location “firmly” would not serve this purpose while
motile.
We find that the Specification reasonably describes the recited
limitation “wherein the plurality of location anchors are stationary” so as to
convey to those skilled in that art that the inventors had possession thereof.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112 rejection of claim 1, and
dependent claims 2—5 and 22—28.
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that claim’s
limitations of “measuring, by the portable detector, information including
the received RF signal strength level from RF signals received from a
plurality of location anchors at the location” and “sending . . . the
information including the received RF signal strength level from the RF
signals received from the plurality of location anchors at the location to at
least one server” is taught or suggested by Mason. (Final Action 4—5.)
Mason relates to an emergency response personnel accountability
system in which emergency personnel such as first responders are tracked
via personal network devices which may be affixed to their clothing.
(Mason Abstract, 3:34—55.) These devices, field devices 20000, include
5
Appeal 2016-005994
Application 12/695,736
radios 21000 and communicate with a command and control system 10000.
{Id. 4:42—5:3.) The radios 210000 provide position determination via
different technologies including “RF identification/direction finder
(RFID/DF) technology.” {Id. 12:41—55.) The Examiner finds that the field
devices and radios of Mason teach or suggest both the portable detector of
the claim and the plurality of location anchors. (Final Action 5; Answer 20.)
The Examiner further finds that Mason teaches that received RF signal
strength levels from location anchors are transmitted to a controller. (Final
Action 5.)
However, we agree with Appellants that Mason describes only the
field devices determining their own location, e.g., using RFID/DF
technology. (Appeal Br. 22; Reply Br. 15; see, e.g., Mason 16:26—29;
17:12—14.) Mason notes that a device may include a “sensor to support RF
connectivity and RF signal strength information” (19:7—16) but does not
provide details regarding how RFID/DF location determination occurs or
whether it involves the sensing and sending of RF signal strength
information from other field devices, as opposed to determining and sending
location. We do not agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of
Mason teach or suggest the claimed measuring of RF signal strength of RF
signals received from location anchors, or the sending of information
including the RF signal strength level to a server.
Because we agree with at least one dispositive argument advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1. Additionally, we do not sustain the rejections of
6
Appeal 2016-005994
Application 12/695,736
independent claim 6, or dependent claims 2—5 and 7—28 all argued in whole
or in part on the same basis.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 112, first paragraph rejection of claims
1—5 and 22—28 as failing to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that
the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 1—28 as
obvious.
REVERSED
7