Ex Parte Holler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12671923 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/671,923 02/03/2010
32692 7590 06/01/2016
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert E Holler
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
63423US004 5239
EXAMINER
DORSEY, RENEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT E. HOLLER, SUSAN E. PETERS,
LAWRENCE J. PTASIENSKI, NEAL A. RAKOW,
and
CRISTINA U. THOMAS
Appeal2014-008318
Application 12/671,923
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-008318
Application 12/671,923
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "tracking compliance of personal
protection (PP) articles for use in working environments" (Spec. 1:4--5).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for tracking compliance with respect to at
least one personal protection article:
providing at least one personal protection article
configured with a smart tag;
providing at least one predetermined criterion that governs
compliance with respect to the at least one personal protection
article in a particular working environment;
tracking the at least one personal protection article by
retrieving smart tag data;
determining whether the smart tag data satisfies the at least
one predetermined criterion; and
storing data relating to results of the determination.
REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Appelt (US 2006/0125623 Al; June 15, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Appelt teaches
providing at least one predetermined criterion that governs compliance with
respect to a personal protection article in a particular working environment,
as required by independent claim 1 (App. Br. 4--8; Reply Br. 2---6).
Particularly, Appellants argue Appelt's sensing "that a piece of equipment is
'working properly' does not necessarily mean that the piece of equipment is
in compliance with a predetermined criterion or criteria" (Reply Br. 5, 6).
2
Appeal2014-008318
Application 12/671,923
The Examiner finds Appelt's paragraphs 86 and 90 teach a
predetermined criterion that governs compliance with respect to a personal
protection article used in a hazardous location (Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 2-3).
Particularly, Appelt's equipment sensors monitor and evaluate the
performance of equipment worn by a person, indicating the equipment's
compliance with performance standards criteria (Ans. 3 (citing Appelt
i-f 86)). We agree. Further, Appelt's paragraph 96 additionally supports the
Examiner finding a predetermined criterion-such as "a manufacturer's
suggested level for normal functioning of associated safety equipment"-
governs compliance of Appelt's equipment (see Appelt i-f 96). This is
commensurate with the broad description of "predetermined criterion" in
Appellants' Specification. 1
Appellants further contend Appelt does not disclose determining
whether smart tag data satisfies at least one predetermined criterion as
recited in claim 1, because Appelt does not measure equipment performance
against a predetermined criterion that governs compliance (Reply Br. 6-7;
App. Br. 8). Appellants' support for this contention, however, relies upon
their previous argument that Appelt does not teach the predetermined
1 Appellants' Specification provides a "'[p]redetermined criterion or
criteria' as the terms are utilized in the present application refers to a set of
rules, guidelines, regulations, recommendations, certifications, or the like
that governs use of the at least one PPE article in a working environment.
The rules, guidelines, regulations, recommendations, certifications, and the
like may be promulgated from any source .... Examples of the foregoing
include, without limitation, the OSHA respirator regulation .... The present
disclosure is not limited to OSHA rules and regulations, but any and all
other appropriate rules, regulations, recommendations and guidelines."
(Spec. 5:2-8, 6:15-16 (emphasis added)).
3
Appeal2014-008318
Application 12/671,923
criterion of claim 1. As discussed supra, we are not persuaded by that
argument, and we agree with the Examiner's finding that Appelt teaches the
determining step (Ans. 3--4 (citing Appelt i-f 86)).
Appellants also contend Appelt does not teach storing data relating to
results of the determination, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 7).
Particularly, Appellants argue Appelt's storage unit is not used to save
results with respect to whether a predetermined criterion is satisfied (App.
Br. 5). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Appelt's paragraphs 24 and 90
teach recording an exposure history, which includes an equipment's
compliance with a satisfactory performance criterion described in Appelt' s
paragraph 86 (Ans. 4--5). Moreover, Appelt's paragraphs 47-55 further
support the Examiner's finding that Appelt stores data relating to results of a
compliance determination (see Appelt i-fi-147, 55 ("Record data for after
action analysis ... Record high temperature and low temperature outside
normal operating limits" (emphases added))).
In light of the broad terms recited in representative claim 1 and the
arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish the
claimed invention over Appelt. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error and sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim
1. For the same reasons as claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claims 2-20, for which no separate arguments
were provided.
4
Appeal2014-008318
Application 12/671,923
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5