Ex Parte Jackson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2015

10898212 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2015)

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.
10/898,212 11/26/2004 George Gregory Jackson 4922
7590 08/28/2015
George G. Jackson
P.O. Box 3263
Woonsocket, RI 02895
EXAMINER
BUSS, BENJAMIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2015 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 GEORGE GREGORY JACKSON
____________

Appeal 2012-010136
Application 10/898,212
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1–12, which constitute all the claims pending in the application.
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention generally relates to a process for a space time
detection system that interacts with objects—the objects being people,
places, and things where the locations and surroundings of the objects are
mapped and stored in a database—to detect events and then initiate
preprogrammed responses that can be processed with or without computers.
Abstract. A reporting and analysis process is then activated based on the
Appeal 2012-010136
Application 10/898,212

2

recognition progress which executes an alarm process and takes
preprogrammed actions. Id.; see, e.g., claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 12.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows.
1. A new process for a space time continuum intercept
detection system that interacts with the past, present and
future using factual and real life objects, actions and
events in space and time to detect past, present and future
events and actions initiating preprogrammed responses.

The Rejections
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1–12 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also rejected claims 7 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Id. In addition, the Examiner
rejected claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Sheikh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0192719 A1,
published Sept. 1, 2005) (id. at 4), but the rejection was withdrawn in the
Examiner’s Answer mailed on March 20, 2012. Ans. 3.
On April 19, 2012, Appellant filed a Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
with a request for an extension of time to file an amended appeal brief, on
the belief that the Appeal Brief filed on January 24, 2012, was deemed
noncompliant by the Examiner. Appellant stated:
Applicant request [sic] an extension of time to comply
with the non-compliant appeal brief from a mailing date set by
the office. A significant portion of applicants [sic] appeal is
supported by information in the appendix that was not included
and made the brief non-compliant and deficient. With the
deficient brief the panel could not make a reasonable
evaluation.
Applicant would simply like to make the brief compliant
under § 41.37 and have the appropriate time to respond with an
amended brief.
Appeal 2012-010136
Application 10/898,212

3

(Misc. Letter 1.)
However, the Examiner did not hold the Appeal Brief to be
noncompliant. The Appellant then filed an “Amended Appeal and Reply
Brief” on August 20, 2012, including exhibits, after the July 12, 2012 mail
date of the Appeal Docketing Notice. Appellant, however, failed to comply
with the rules regarding the time to file a reply brief, and extensions of time
are not applicable to that time period. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(c). The
Appellant’s Amended Appeal and Reply Brief, which we will treat as a reply
brief filing, was not timely submitted and, therefore, is not considered.1
Moreover, Appellant’s claim amendments, set forth in Appendix B to the
filing, are not entered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(c) (noting that amendments
filed after the filing of an appeal will not be entered, unless the amendment
meets an exception under §§ 41.39(b)(1), 41.50(a)(2)(i), or 41.50(b)(1), none
of which apply in this case).
ANALYSIS
We have carefully considered Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief and agree with the Examiner’s rationale as set forth on pages 4–7 of
the Examiner’s Answer. Accordingly, we adopt them as our own in
sustaining the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12.
DECISION
On the record before us, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that claims 1–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101

1 We note, however, that even if we were to consider Appellant’s arguments
of August 20, 2012, it would not change our decision, as Appellant is
essentially reiterating the arguments made in the Appeal Brief filed
January 24, 2012.
Appeal 2012-010136
Application 10/898,212

4

and claims 7 and 10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–12 is
AFFIRMED.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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