Ex Parte Haigh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 27, 2010

10830539 (B.P.A.I. May. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KAREN Z. HAIGH,
CHRISTOPHER W. GEIB, and
WENDE L. DEWING
____________
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,5391
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: May 27, 2010
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on April 23, 2004. The real party in interest is Karen Z. Haigh,
Christopher W. Geib, and Wende L. Dewing. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 through 15, and 17
through 37. (App. Br. 3.) Claims 4, 5, and 16 have been cancelled. (Id.)
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for intelligently querying a
user, or a third person who has knowledge of the user’s situation (e.g.,
caretaker), in order to obtain information that is useful for evaluating the
mental or physical condition of the user. (Spec. 22, ll. 23-26.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for automatically gathering information to assist in
evaluating an actor in an environment, the method comprising:
monitoring information relating to said actor;
automatically recognizing an existence of a querying situation
indicating a mental or physical status of said actor or status of said
environment, based upon at least one factor apart from a direct request
by said actor for assistance wherein said querying situation is
automatically determined by a querying module based on an
evaluation by said querying module of said monitored information;
formulating a query relating to said querying situation; and
automatically posing said query to said actor or another person.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kail, IV 5,959,529 Sep. 28, 1999
Zadrozny 6,540,674 B2 Apr. 1, 2003

Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

3
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1 through 3, 6 through 15, and 17
through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Zadrozny and Kail.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Zadrozny’s disclosure of recognizing and
analyzing different types of events utilizing various types of sensors, and
providing the necessary assistance, does not teach “automatically
recognizing an existence of a query situation…,” as recited in independent
claim 1. (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3.) Further, Appellants argue that Kail’s
disclosure of a central monitoring device that monitors data, processes data,
and displays data to an operator does not teach “automatically recognizing
an existence of a query situation…wherein said querying situation is
automatically determined by a querying module based on an evaluation by
said querying module of said monitored information,” as recited in
independent claim 1. (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 5-6.) Appellants also
argue that Kail’s disclosure of reprogramming the central monitoring device
amounts to a stimulus-response query and does not teach the ability to
recognize the existence of a query situation. (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6.)
Additionally, Appellants allege that Zadrozny’s disclosure of a request
processor is a processor that receives requests from a user and retrieves the
requested information, whereas the claimed “query module” poses a query
and automatically recognizes the existence of a query situation. (Reply Br.
4.)
Appellants contend that Kail’s disclosure of a periodic status inquiry
does not teach “formulating a query…,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

4
(App. Br. 13-14.) Further, Appellants argue that since Kail does not teach
formulating a query, it cannot teach “automatically posing said query to said
actor or another person,” as recited in independent claim 1. (Id. at 15.)
Additionally, Appellants allege there is insufficient rationale for the
proffered combination. (Id.; Reply Br. 7-8.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Zadrozny’s disclosure of a system that
supervises a person with a mental illness, whereby the system recognizes
and analyzes different types of events and passes the events to a processor,
teaches “automatically recognizing an existence of a querying situation,” as
claimed. (Ans. 13-14.) Further, the Examiner finds that Kail’s disclosure of
a central monitoring unit that send status inquiries that require a response
from a person teaches “wherein said querying situation is automatically
determined by a querying module based on an evaluation by said querying
module of said monitored information,” as claimed. (Id. at 14-15.)
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Zadrozny’s disclosure of sensors that
generate events, whereby the sensor readings are compared and analyzed
against stored values in order to recognize an incident, teaches the “query
module,” as claimed. (Id. at 15-16.)
The Examiner finds that Kail’s disclosure of periodic status inquiries
that are responsive to pre-selected sensor readings teaches “formulating a
query…,” and “automatically posing said query to said actor or another
person,” as claimed. (Id. at 16-17.) The Examiner also finds that there is
sufficient rationale for the proffered combination. (Id. at 17.)

Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

5
II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Zadrozny and Kail renders independent claim 1
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether there is sufficient
rationale for the proffered combination, and whether the proffered
combination teaches:
(a) “automatically recognizing an existence of a querying
situation…,” as recited in independent claim 1;
(b) “wherein said querying situation is automatically determined by
a querying module based on an evaluation by said querying module of said
monitored information,” as recited in independent claim 1;
(c) “formulating a query…,” as recited in independent claim 1; and
(d) “automatically posing said query to said actor or another
person,” as recited in independent claim 1.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (“FF”) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Zadrozny
1. Zadrozny generally relates to supervising a person with a
mental illness and, in particular, to acquiring sensor data related to the
person and the person’s environment, tracking the acquired sensor data, and
recognizing changes in the sensor data that indicate the occurrence of an
event. (Abst.)
2. Zadrozny’s Figure 4 depicts an Event Analyzer (“EA”) (430),
which includes an Incident Recognizer (“IR”) module (605) that determines
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

6
the occurrence of an incident. (Col. 9, ll. 39-40.) Zadrozny discloses that
“[a]n incident is an event in which the sensor data values are no equal to the
expected values in the [General Events database] GE 450 or [Personal Event
database] PE 460.” (Id. at ll. 41-42.)
3. Further, Zadrozny’s Figure 4 depicts that the EA (430) includes
a Determination of Compliance (“DOC”) module (670), which is capable of
determining whether or not a mentally ill person has complied with certain
recommendations during an incident. (Col. 10, ll. 56-59.) If the mentally ill
person has not complied with the recommendations, the EA (430) checks the
classification of the incident in order to determine whether or not the
incident is dangerous. (Id. at ll. 59-61.) If the incident is dangerous, the EA
(430) generates an alert to the mentally ill person or his/her caretaker. (Id. at
ll. 61-62.) If the incident is not dangerous, the EA (430) generates
reminders that help aid the mentally ill person to fulfill the
recommendations. (Id. at ll. 62-64.) Zadrozny discloses that the DOC (670)
maintains a checklist in order to confirm compliance with the
recommendations. (Col. 10, l. 65-col. 11, l. 4)
Kail
4. Kail generally relates to a portable, real-time, reprogrammable
sensor monitoring system. (Col. 1, ll. 6-7.) Kail’s system monitors a
remotely located person that attempts to function normally, but may or may
not be able to do so because of age or infirmity. (Id. at ll. 38-45.) Kail
discloses an approach that monitors and maintains communication with a
person in case of abnormal or emergency situations, but still allows the
person to function normally. (Id. at ll. 52-53.)
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

7
5. Kail discloses a central monitoring device that communicates
with a plurality of portable monitoring units, whereby the central monitoring
device identifies each unit and the data relative to its configuration and use,
processes the data received from each unit, and displays the data to an
operator. (Col. 3, ll. 8-14.) Further, Kail discloses monitoring subjects by
utilizing the portable monitoring units to sense events. (Id. at ll. 19-21.)
The central monitoring device makes periodic status inquiries to each unit
and also may require a response from the person. (Id. at ll. 21-23, 30-31.)
For example, in order to determine if a person is mentally capable of
responding, the central monitoring unit may require that the person send a
signal such as “I’m ok.” (Id. at ll. 31-37.)
6. Kail’s Figures 6A and 6B depict a process whereby the operator
(56) or the terminal (52) queries a specific portable monitoring unit (12) in
order to monitor one or more of the sensors (28). (Col. 7, ll. 60-63.) Kail
discloses that the central monitoring device (14) can forward a service
request message to the portable monitoring unit (12) and the microprocessor
(22) and its memory (44). (Col. 8, ll. 4-6.) If a response is requested from
the person, the display (34) or the audio/visual communicator (36) operate
until the person responds through the manual input (32). (Id. at ll. 6-9.)

IV. PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Obviousness
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under
§ 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

8
nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to
be obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417.
The Court further instructs that:
[o]ften it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents; . . . and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine
whether there was an apparent reason for combining the known
elements in a the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.

KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.

Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

9
V. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
1) automatically recognizing an existence of a querying situation; 2)
wherein said querying situation is automatically determined by a
querying module based on an evaluation by said querying module of
said monitored information; 3) formulating a query; and 4)
automatically posing said query to said actor or another person.

As detailed in the Findings of Fact section, Zadrozny discloses
supervising a person with a mental illness by acquiring sensor data related to
the person and their environment, tracking such data, and recognizing
changes in the data. (FF 1.) In particular, Zadrozny discloses an EA
comprising an IR module that determines the occurrence of an incident. (FF
2.) The IR module detects an incident by comparing the acquired sensor
data with expected values in a GE or PE database. (Id.)
We find that Zadrozny’s disclosure teaches a system that supervises a
person with a mental illness by utilizing sensors to acquire data pertaining to
the person’s condition. We also find that Zadrozny’s disclosure teaches
utilizing the acquired data to recognize and evaluate an incident. In
particular, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would readily appreciate
utilizing Zadrozny’s system to supervise a mentally ill person and
automatically recognize and evaluate an incident based on acquired
monitoring information. Thus, we find that Zadrozny teaches “automatically
recognizing an existence of a querying situation…,” as recited in
independent claim 1.
Further, Kail discloses a portable, reprogrammable sensor system that
monitors an elderly person in a remote location. (FF 4.) In particular, Kail
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

10
discloses a central monitoring device that sends periodic status inquiries to a
plurality of portable monitoring units, receives sensor data from each unit,
processes the sensor data, and displays the corresponding data to an
operator. (FF 5.) Further, Kail discloses determining whether an elderly
person is mentally capable of responding by sending a status inquiry that
requires the elderly person to send a response indicating that he/she is ok.
(Id.)
We find that Kail’s disclosure teaches a central monitoring device that
communicates with a plurality of portable monitoring units by sending out
status inquiries and acquiring data therefrom. In particular, we find that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that Kail’s central monitoring
device is capable of supervising a mentally ill person by utilizing Zadrozny’s
system to automatically recognize and evaluate an incident based on
acquired monitoring information. Thus, we find that the combined
disclosures of Zadrozny and Kail teach “wherein said querying situation is
automatically determined by a querying module based on an evaluation by
said querying module of said monitored information,” as recited in
independent claim 1.
Additionally, we find that Kail’s disclosure teaches a central
monitoring device that evaluates acquired data and is capable of sending out
an additional inquiry requesting that the mentally ill person respond. In
particular, we find that Kail’s disclosure of evaluating data and sending out
an additional inquiry amounts to formulating and, subsequently, posing a
query. Thus, we find that Kail teaches “formulating a query…,” and
“automatically posing said query to said actor or another person,” as recited
in independent claim 1.
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

11
Rationale to Combine
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the suggestion for
the proposed modification in the prior art suffices as an articulated reason to
establish the prima facie case of obviousness. We find that an ordinarily
skilled artisan in the data management art, at the time of the invention,
would have combined Zadrozny’s disclosure of a system that supervises a
mentally ill person by automatically recognizing and evaluating an incident
based on acquired monitoring information (FF 1-2), with Kail’s disclosure of
a central monitoring device that evaluates acquired data and is capable of
sending out an additional inquiry requesting that a mentally ill person
respond (FF 3-4). This would have predictably resulted in a real time
monitoring device that ensures timely care of a mentally ill person faced
with abnormal or emergency situations. (FF 4.)
Additionally, we find that the combined disclosures of Zadrozny and
Kail disclose prior art elements that perform their ordinary functions to
predictably result in a data management system for querying a person, or a
caretaker who has knowledge of the person’s situation, in order to obtain
information that is useful for evaluating the mental or physical condition of
the person. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19. Thus, Appellants’ argument that
insufficient rationale exists to justify the proffered combination is
unavailing. It follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in concluding that the combination of Zadrozny and Kail renders
independent claim 1 unpatentable.

Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

12
Claims 2, 3, 10 through 12, 17 through 19, 21, 25 through 27, 29 through 37
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability with
respect to independent claim 29, and dependent claims 2, 3, 10 through 12,
17 through 19, 21, 25 through 27, and 30 through 37. Therefore, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of the cited claims. Consequently,
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 29, and dependent claims 2, 3, 10 through 12, 17 through 19, 21, 25
through 27, and 30 through 37, for the reasons set forth in our discussion of
independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009).
Claims 6 through 9
Appellants contend that Zadrozny’s disclosure of tracking the
schedule of expected events and recognizing their occurrence does not teach
an unexpected action or activity performed, let alone an expected action or
activity not performed. (App. Br. 16-18.) Thus, Appellants argue that the
proffered combination does not teach “an unexpected action performed by
said actor,” “an expected action not performed by said actor,” “an
unexpected activity performed by said actor,” and “an expected activity not
performed by said actor,” as recited in dependent claims 6 through 9,
respectively. (Id.) We do not agree.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Zadrozny discloses
that the EA includes a DOC module that determines whether or not a
mentally ill person complies with recommendations during an incident. (FF
3.) We find that Zadrozny’s disclosure teaches a module that recognizes an
incident involving a mentally ill person and determines if the person
complies with applicable guidelines. In particular, we find that Zadrozny’s
disclosure of an incident involving a mentally ill person amounts to an
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

13
unexpected action or activity performed by the mentally ill person. We also
find that Zadrozny’s disclosure of applicable guidelines amounts to an
indication of a future course of action, or expected actions. In summary, we
find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that Zadrozny’s
disclosure of recognizing an incident and complying with applicable
guidelines amounts to determining whether or not a mentally ill person
performs an unexpected action or activity and, further, whether the mentally
ill person complies with expected actions or activities. Thus, we find that
Zadrozny teaches the disputed limitations. It follows that Appellants have
not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of
Zadrozny and Kail renders dependent claims 6 through 9 unpatentable.
Claims 13 through 15
Appellants contend that Zadrozny’s disclosure of monitoring an
expected schedule and determining if acquired values are out of range does
not teach an event which is abandoned or ignored, let alone issuing and
monitoring a reminder. (App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 8-9.) Thus, Appellants
argue that the proffered combination does not teach “[a] task abandoned by
said actor prior to completion,” “a reminder ignored by said actor,” and
“automatically issuing said reminder to said actor; and monitoring a
response to said actor to said reminder,” as recited in dependent claims 13
through 15, respectively. (Id.) We do not agree.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Zadrozny discloses
classifying an incident by assessing whether or not an incident is dangerous.
(FF 3.) In particular, Zadrozny discloses that if the incident is not
dangerous, generating reminders to aid the mentally ill person in fulfilling
the applicable recommendations. (Id.) Further, Zadrozny discloses
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

14
maintaining a checklist in order to confirm compliance with the applicable
recommendations. (Id.)
We find that Zadrozny’s disclosure teaches generating reminders in
order to help a mentally ill person to comply with applicable guidelines. We
also find that Zadrozny’s disclosure teaches maintaining a checklist in order
to confirm appliance with the applicable guidelines. In particular, we find
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that Zadrozny’s disclosure
of generating reminders and maintaining a checklist teaches issuing a
reminder and monitoring the mentally ill person’s response in order to
determine whether a task has been completed or abandoned. Thus, we find
that Zadrozny teaches the disputed limitations. It follows that Appellants
have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination
of Zadrozny and Kail renders dependent claims 13 through 15 unpatentable.
Claims 20 and 22
Appellants contend that Zadrozny’s disclosure of alerting a caretaker
does not teach “receiving a prompt from said another person,” and
“providing said response to said another person,” as recited in dependent
claims 20 and 22, respectively. (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 9.) We do not
agree.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Zadrozny discloses
that if an incident is dangerous, alerting the mentally ill person or his/her
caretaker. (FF 3.) We find that Zadrozny’s disclosure teaches notifying a
caretaker. As set forth above, Zadrozny’s disclosure teaches a system that
sends out an additional inquiry requesting that a mentally ill person respond.
See supra disc. at 10. In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would readily appreciate that Zadrozny’s system is capable of sending and
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

15
receiving notifications from a caretaker upon receiving a response for a
mentally ill person. Thus, we find that Zadrozny teaches the disputed
limitations. It follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in concluding that the combination of Zadrozny and Kail renders
dependent claims 20 and 22 unpatentable.
Claims 23 and 24
Appellants contend that Zadrozny’s disclosure of generating an alert if
an incident is dangerous does not teach sending an alert via an audio or a
video component. (App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 9-10.) Further, Appellants
argue that Zadrozny’s disclosure of an alert is not the same as a query.
(Reply Br. 10.) Thus, Appellants allege that the proffered combination does
not teach “delivering said query via at least one automated medium,” and
“wherein said automated medium includes at least one of an audio or visual
component,” as recited in dependent claims 23 and 24, respectively. (App.
Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 9-10.) We do not agree.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Kail discloses that
the central monitoring device can forward a service request message, or
inquiry, to any one of the portable monitoring units. (FF 6.) In particular,
Kail discloses that if the inquiry requests a response from the person, the
audio/visual communicator maintains operations until the person responds.
(Id.) We find that Kail’s disclosure teaches sending and receiving inquiries
utilizing an audio or video component. Thus, we find that Kail teaches the
disputed limitations. It follows that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Zadrozny and Kail
renders dependent claims 23 and 24 unpatentable.

Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

16
Claim 28
Appellants contend that Zadrozny’s disclosure of generating an alert
to a mentally ill person or his/her caretaker does not teach a query issued by
a system. (App. Br. 23-24.) Thus, Appellants argue that the proffered
combination does not teach “deciding whether said query should be posed to
said actor or to said another person,” as recited in dependent claim 28. (Id.)
As set forth above, we find that Kail’s disclosure of sending out an
additional inquiry to a mentally ill person amounts to formulating and,
subsequently, posing a query. See supra disc. at 10. Thus, we find that Kail
teaches the disputed limitation. It follows that Appellants have not shown
that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Zadrozny and
Kail renders dependent claim 28 unpatentable.

VI. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1 through 3, 6 through 15, and 17 through 37 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

VII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 3, 6
through 15, and 17 through 37.
Appeal 2009-005859
Application 10/830,539

17
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

Vsh

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
PATENT SERVICES
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-2245