Ex Parte Jurmain et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613786602 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/786,602 03/06/2013 Richard N. Jurmain REALW006USPT06 2518 23403 7590 01/04/2017 SHERRILL LAW OFFICES 4756 BANNING AVE SUITE 212 WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110-3205 EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): michaels @ sherrilllaw.com izag @ sherrilllaw.com docketing @ sherrilllaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD N. JURMAIN, MARY M. JURMAIN, CHARLES F. JOHNSON, and ADRIAN PELKUS Appeal 2015-003343 Application 13/786,602 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Richard N. Jurmain et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION Appellants’ disclosure “relates to the field of simulated parenting. More specifically, the invention relates to infant simulators used in educational programs for educating prospective parents about the realities of 1 Realityworks, Inc., is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-003343 Application 13/786,602 parenthood and assisting in the education and training of personnel in the child-care field.” Spec. 1,11. 13—16. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An infant simulator, comprising: (a) a mannequin having a temperature sensor effective for sensing the environmental temperatures to which the mannequin is exposed; and (b) a means in electrical communication with the temperature sensor and programmed to record the sensed temperature for subsequent review and analysis. Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1). REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, and 5—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikinis (US 5,746,602, issued May 5, 1998) and Gluck (US 5,386,831, issued Feb. 7, 1995). 2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikinis, Gluck, and Goldman (US 5,705,981, issued Jan. 6, 1998). 3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikinis, Gluck, and Dotan (US 5,174,656, issued Dec. 29, 1992). 4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikinis, Gluck, and Ta (US 4,776,179, issued Oct. 11, 1988). ANALYSIS Obviousness of claims 1, 2, and 5—11 Appellants argue the patentability of claims 1,2, and 5—11 together as a group. Appeal Br. 5—7. Accordingly, we select claim 1 to decide the appeal as to the rejection, with claims 2 and 5—11 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 2 Appeal 2015-003343 Application 13/786,602 The Examiner finds that Kikinis discloses mannequin 13 having temperature sensor 67 for sensing the environmental temperatures to which it is exposed, and temperature recording means 15. Final Act. 2 (citing Kikinis, col. 6,11. 18—21, col. 8,11. 32—36). The Examiner determines that Kikinis does not disclose that temperature recording means 15 is in electrical communication with temperature sensor 67 and programmed to record the sensed temperature for subsequent review and analysis. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Gluck teaches an infant monitor including means 32 in electrical communication with temperature sensor 20 and programmed to record the sensed temperature for subsequent review and analysis. Id. (citing Gluck, col. 3,11. 11—15, col. 4,11. 6—9 and 48—50). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Kikinis’s infant simulator with Gluck’s temperature recording means to “facilitate realistic simulation of an infant’s environment.” Id. Appellants contend that Kikinis merely discloses monitoring environmental temperature of a doll for purposes of generating a real-time response indicative of the sensed temperature. Appeal Br. 6. Kikinis discloses interactive doll 13 adapted to communicate with a personal computer (PC) 15. See Kikinis, col. 6,11. 44^47, Fig. 1. Doll 13 comprises sensors for temperature. See id. at col. 5,11. 56—57, Figs. 1, 2. Regarding the sensing of temperature with doll 13, Kikinis states that “[ojther sensors may be used for temperature, and the doll may respond, through processed [sic] to be described below, with indications of comfort or discomfort[]” (see id. at col. 6,11. 18—21), and “[sjensors 67 are meant to represent also stand-alone sensors for such as local temperature ... for doll 3 Appeal 2015-003343 Application 13/786,602 13, and may or may not be used, depending on requirements of specific embodiments[]” (see id. at col. 8,11. 32—36). Appellants also contend that Gluck does not disclose recording environmental temperatures for subsequent review and analysis. Appeal Br. 6. Rather, Appellants contend, Gluck discloses monitoring and recording the body temperature of a child for use in providing the child with medical care, and does not disclose or suggest monitoring and recording the environmental temperature to which the child is exposed. Id. The Examiner responds that the claim recitation “for subsequent review and analysis” is directed to intended use. Ans. 8. We agree. Claim 1 recites that the “means” is “programmed to record the sensed temperature.” “[F]or subsequent review and analysis” indicates what the recorded temperature data is subsequently used for, that is, the purpose of recording the data. Claim 1 does not recite that the “means” subsequently reviews and analyzes the recorded data, or recite any other element that does this. The Examiner explains that Kikinis discloses use of a personal computer capable of recording temperatures (Ans. 8), and Gluck shows “it is well known to provide recordation of data in the form of temperature data, whether environmental or biological-wise” (id.). Additionally, the Examiner explains that Gluck is relied on “to teach the basic concept that it is known to record temperature data which can be reviewed and analyzed,” and not for teaching the recording of outside temperature. Id. at 9. The Examiner explains that both Kikinis and Gluck disclose temperature data and object interaction, and reasons that it would have been obvious to provide 4 Appeal 2015-003343 Application 13/786,602 temperature data capable of analysis and review, as taught by Gluck, to enhance real-life simulation of Kikinis’s doll. Id. at 8. Appellants reply that Kikinis does not disclose or suggest programming the personal computer to record temperatures. Reply Br. 1. As discussed above, Kikinis discloses use of a personal computer. In that regard, Kikinis discloses, for example, that “a high-end PC is preferred to provide computing power and mass-storage capacity for relatively sophisticated interactive doll applications.” See Kikinis, col. 7,11. 47—51. Gluck discloses a temperature monitoring and warning system that detects temperature of a body. See Gluck, Abstract. The system includes a processing unit to receive and store (record) temperature information. See id. Even if Kikinis does not explicitly describe programming the personal computer to record temperatures sensed by temperature sensor 67 provided on doll 13, Gluck’s system includes “central processing unit 32 [that] can also transmit temperature data to a computer to obtain a detailed record of temperature events.'1'’ See id. at col. 4,11. 48—50 (emphasis added). One skilled in the art would have understood that Gluck’s central processing unit 32 and/or computer is programmed to obtain the “detailed record of temperature events” provided by detecting the temperature of a body, or would have found it obvious to program at least one of these elements to obtain the detailed record. Additionally, one skilled in the art would have understood that Gluck’s detailed record is generated for “subsequent review and analysis,” or would have found it obvious to subject the detailed record to such review and analysis. Accordingly, the Examiner’s proposed combination of the teachings of Kikinis and Gluck would include the recited 5 Appeal 2015-003343 Application 13/786,602 “means” “programmed to record the sensed temperature for subsequent review and analysis.” Appellants further contend that Kikinis provides no purpose for recording the sensed temperature for subsequent review and analysis, and, because its doll does not require medical care, there is no motivation to incorporate Gluck’s medical care recording function in Kikinis’s doll. Appeal Br. 7. However, the Examiner has articulated rationales for combining the teachings of Kikinis and Gluck—i.e., to “facilitate realistic simulation of an infant’s environment” (Final Act. 3) and “to enhance real- life simulation” of Kikinis’s doll 13 (Ans. 8). Appellants’ contentions do not apprise us of error in these rationales. Consequently, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational underpinning. For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 5—11 which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Kikinis and Gluck. Obviousness of claims 3, 4, and 12 For dependent claims 3, 4, and 12, Appellants contend that the additional cited references fail to cure the deficiencies of Kikinis and Gluck with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 7—9. However, Appellants have not apprised us of any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and thus, we sustain the rejections of claim 3 as unpatentable over Kikinis, Gluck, and Goldman, claim 4 as unpatentable over Kikinis, Gluck, and Dotan, and claim 12 as unpatentable over Kikinis, Gluck, and Ta. 6 Appeal 2015-003343 Application 13/786,602 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation