Ex Parte Groves

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2014

12333958 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2014)

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.
12/333,958 12/12/2008 Bruce D. Groves EMI0002-02CP 7316
112006 7590 09/16/2014
Graham Curtin, P.A.
4 Headquarters Plaza
Morristown, NJ 07962
EXAMINER
FRANK, RODNEY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2014 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 BRUCE D. GROVES1
____________

Appeal 2013-000278
Application 12/333,958
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 7–14, and 17–20. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant’s claimed invention relates to systems and methods for
monitoring environmental conditions. Spec. ¶ 2.

1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is Emilcott
Associates, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2013-000278
Application 12/333,958

2
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix (App. Br. 17):
1. An environmental monitoring system for monitoring a
site, comprising:
one or more environmental measurement instruments that
collect a plurality of data;
an image recording device, being capable of recording an
image of a location related to the site;
a controller in communication with the one or more
environmental measurement instruments and with the image
recording device to selectively control recording of the
image by the image recording device in accordance with the
plurality of data; and
a display located remotely from the one or more
environmental measurement instruments and from the image
recording device capable of displaying data generated by the
one or more environmental measurement instruments and
capable of displaying the image.

The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the final rejection of
claims 1–4, 7–14, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
McMillin (US 7,027,773 B1, issued Apr. 11, 2006).2 App. Br. 5.

OPINION

The dispositive issue for this appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that McMillin would have suggested an interface between one
or more environmental measurement instruments and an image recording

2 Appellant offers the same argument with respect to independent claims 1
and 11, and does not argue any dependent claim apart from the independent
claims. See App. Br. 14. Accordingly, claims 2–4, 7–14, and 17–20 will
stand or fall together with our analysis of independent claim 1.
Appeal 2013-000278
Application 12/333,958

3
device and controlling the image recording device in accordance with data
collected by one or more environmental measurement instruments, as
required by the claims?
Appellant acknowledges that McMillin discloses the use of
environmental sensors and cameras, but argues that “McMillin does not
teach or suggest any interface between these components and does not teach
or suggest [selectively] controlling image recording devices in accordance
with data collected by environmental measurement instruments, as required
by claim 1.” App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 2.
According to the Examiner, McMillin “indicate[s] that a device
utilizing a camera that interacts with other devices can be activated or
deactivated as desired based upon signals from an additional minion device
attached to a sensor, such as an environmental sensor.” Ans. 13.
After review of the respective positions provided by the Examiner and
Appellant, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s rejection. For example, McMillin discloses a communications
network wherein minion devices communicate and interact with each other.
See id. at 12. McMillin also teaches that this network can include
environmental sensors and that minion devices may be connected to or
embedded in cameras or camcorders. McMillin, col. 48, ll. 50–63 and col.
51, ll. 20–25. Additionally, in the context of traffic control, McMillin
discloses the “[m]inion devices provide data to be fed back to the traffic
management system to dynamically control traffic signals.” Id. at col. 44, ll.
65–67; see also Ans. 12. According to the Examiner, McMillin also
describes how minion devices communicate with one another to enable or
Appeal 2013-000278
Application 12/333,958

4
disable various pieces of equipment. Ans. 12–13 (citing McMillin, cols. 53–
54).
In view of McMillin’s disclosure of environmental sensors, cameras,
and the suggestion that different components and devices can be combined
and communicate with one another to cause additional actions, we find that
the Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error on the part of
the Examiner.3
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over McMillin.

CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–4, 7–14, and 17–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED
cdc

3 We note that the Supreme Court has indicated that the obviousness analysis
“need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Based on the
aforementioned disclosures of McMillin, we find the claimed subject matter
to be within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant’s
argument to the contrary essentially relegates the person of ordinary skill in
the art to an automaton, which, as noted by the Supreme Court, is improper.
Id. at 421(“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.”).