Ex Parte Karl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2016

13157529 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/157,529 06/10/2011 Maurice W. Karl
37761 7590 02/22/2016
Erickson, Kernell
Derusseau & Kleypas, LLC
8900 State Line Road
Suite 500
Leawood, KS 66206
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.
4580.004 7404
EXAMINER
HO,HUYC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2016 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):
ekdkdocket@kcpatentlaw.com
kre@kcpatentlaw.com
areed@kcpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAURICE W. KARL and JOSHUA A. BRYAN
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
Technology Center 2600
Before ANDREW J. DILLON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to an alert system and apparatus for
an emergency alert system to disseminate emergency information to the
public utilizing a universal paging system through a personal alert device
such as a cellular telephone, pager, PDA or E-FOB. See Abstract.
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
Claims 1 and 14 are illustrative, with key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A personal alert device comprising:
an antenna for receiving a broadcast alert signal and a
broadcast warning message;
a receiver coupled to said antenna for decoding said broadcast
alert signal and said broadcast warning message;
a monitor circuit coupled to said receiver and responsive to
said decoded alert signal to activate a microprocessor;
said microprocessor coupled to said receiver and responsive to
said decoded broadcast warning message to activate LEDs, a
text message and/or an audible alarm indicative of the broadcast
warning message received.
14. A method of disseminating emergency information comprising
the steps of:
receiving event transmission information indicative of an
emergency within a geographic area;
extracting an event code and location code from said event
transmission information;
identifying the nature of said emergency from said event code;
identifying at least one transmitter within a predetermined
distance of a specified location identified by said location code
within a portion of said geographic area;
formatting said event code corresponding to said emergency;
and
broadcasting said formatted event code by said at least one
transmitter.
2
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ganzer
Revell
Flanagan
Lamb
us 5,121,430
us 5,838,237
US 6,169,476 Bl
US 6,329,904 Bl
THE REJECTIONS
June 9, 1992
Nov. 17, 1998
Jan.2,2001
Dec. 11, 2001
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lamb and Revell. Final Act. 5-10. 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 14--19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Flanagan and Ganzer. Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions (App. Br. 7--45; Reply Br. 4--13) that the Examiner has erred.
We have also reviewed the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
(1) the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-12), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-15). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lamb and Revell. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Lamb fails to show or suggest an antenna for receiving
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to ( 1) the Final Action mailed July 19,
2012; (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 15, 2012; (3) the Examiner's
Answer mailed March 28, 2013; and (4) the Reply Brief filed May 28, 2013.
3
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
or a receiver for decoding "both a broadcast alert signal and a broadcast
warning message." App. Br. 9-11.
Further, with respect to both the antenna and the receiver, Appellants
argue that Lamb fails to disclose both an alert message and an alert code. In
detail, Appellants argue that Lamb merely teaches extracting a single code
from a single message. Reply Br. 4--5.
Further, Appellants argue that Lamb and Revell fail to show or
suggest a monitor circuit "coupled to said receiver and responsive to said
decoded alert signal to activate a microprocessor." App. Br. 14. With
respect to Revell, Appellants argue that, although an activation signal is
disclosed, Revell fails to show or suggest the activation signal does not
activate a microprocessor in response to receipt of a broadcast warning
signal. Id. at 15.
The Examiner finds that Lamb teaches a monitoring circuit coupled to
a receiver that receives a broadcast message, which is then analyzed to
determine whether the broadcast message includes an alert message, citing
column 13, lines 46-67 and column 14, lines 24--38. Ans. 5---6.
Further, the Examiner acknowledges that Lamb fails to show or
suggest activating a microprocessor; however, the Examiner points out that
Revell discloses a personal alarm system, which includes an activate switch
301 for activating microprocessor 302 in response to an activation signal
emitted by a cell site 20. Id. at 6.
We find the Examiner's arguments persuasive. Appellants seem to
argue that the "broadcast alert signal" and "broadcast alert message" must be
separate and distinct broadcasts. Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation , we find the Examiner properly interpreted Appellants' claims
4
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
to encompass a single alert signal, which may include therein a broadcast
warning message. Lamb discloses alert messages, which may include
therein a Short Message System message including the level of the alert and
a geographic region indicator. We find that receipt of an alert message, as
taught by Lamb, which includes therein the level of the alert and a
geographic location, is suggestive of the receipt and decoding of a broadcast
alert signal and a broadcast alert message.
Further, Appellants' arguments regarding the failure of Revell to show
or suggest a "monitor circuit coupled to said receiver and responsive to said
decoded alert signal to activate a microprocessor" are not persuasive. The
Examiner found that Lamb suggests the receipt and decoding of a broadcast,
which includes an alert message, and, in combination with Revell' s teaching
that a signal may be utilized to activate a microprocessor, together fairly
suggests the argued features of claim 1.
Appellants attack the Lamb and Revell references separately, without
regard to what that combination would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
"The test for obviousness is not whether ... the claimed invention
must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the
test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (citations omitted). "Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In determining
5
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
obviousness, furthermore, a reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for
what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." Id.
We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-5,
which recite, respectively, that the broadcast alert is generated by NOAA,
FEMA, a governmental agency, or an authorized third party. App. Br. 18-
21.
The Examiner cites Lamb for a teaching that the source of the alert
could be the National Weather Service (NWS), the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Emergency Alert System
(EAS), or the Department of Defense (DOD). Ans. 6-7.
We find the Examiner's extensive list of possible sources of an alert
message to fairly suggest claims 2-5, and we find no error there.
With regard to claim 6, Appellants argue the cited references fail to
show or suggest the activation of the microprocessor for a predetermined
period of time. App. Br. 21-22.
The Examiner cites Revell for a teaching that a "timeout" feature is
well known in the art. Ans. 7.
We are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would, upon
reference to the cited portion of Revell, have found it obvious to activate or
deactivate a microprocessor for a predetermined period of time.
With respect to claim 7, Appellants argue that although Lamb does
disclose an external antenna 3 8 and a diversity receive antenna 28,
ostensibly meeting the "first antenna" and "second antenna" recitation of
claim 7, the failure of Lamb to "provide an enabling disclosure of the
6
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
functions of these antennas" fails to provide the requisite suggestion to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
We are not persuaded. The burden on the Examiner is to show that
one "of ordinary skill in this art" would perceive Lamb as disclosing two
antennas for receiving an alert message and a broadcast warning message.
We believe that burden has been met and that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not require an "enabling disclosure" regarding the function of an
antenna. In view of this holding, and for the reasons set forth above with
respect to claim 1, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants' substantially identical
arguments regarding alleged error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-
13 for the reasons we set forth above regarding claims 2---6.
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to apply the
so-called "Graham Factors" as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1 (1966), in the rejection of claims 1-13. Specifically, Appellants
argue the Examiner has cited portions of the references which, although
generally related to the present invention, are not related in scope or content.
We find the prior art cited by the Examiner in the present application
to be sufficiently related to the technology of the present invention to form a
"predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Consequently, we find the Examiner has appropriately applied the
Graham Factors and we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-13.
Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14--
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Flanagan and Ganzer.
7
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
Specifically, Appellants argue Flanagan fails to show or suggest receiving
event transmission information and extracting an event code and a location
code from that information, identifying the nature of the emergency, and
with Ganzer, fails to show formatting and broadcasting an event code. App.
Br. 37--40; Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner finds that Flanagan, at Figure 6, discloses a central
processing site 21 that receives natural disaster data, analyzes information
from all disaster sources, and transmits warning information to affected
geographic areas. With regard to the extraction of an event code and a
location code, the Examiner finds that Flanagan, in analyzing information
from all disaster sources, must extract event and location information.
Similarly, the Examiner finds that Flanagan necessarily teaches identifying
the nature of the emergency. Ans. 12-13.
Finally, the Examiner finds that Flanagan transmits warning signals to
affected areas and consequently, must necessarily transmit an encoded signal
or code. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that Ganzer teaches a code
generator unit 12 which represents a selected area and a particular alert type.
Id.
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Flanagan and Ganzer in view of the
clear teachings within Flanagan and Ganzer that disclose receiving event
information and extracting location and disaster type information which is
then encoded and transmitted to the area affected by the occurrence.
Appellants also urge error on the part of the Examiner with respect to
claims 15 and 16, arguing that the cited references fail to show or suggest
use of the Emergency Alert System (EAS). App. Br. 40--42.
8
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
The Examiner points out that Flanagan discloses, at Figure 1, the
receipt of various emergency/alert messages from multiple sources. The
Examiner finds that the use of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) as one
particular source of emergency/alert messages to be an obvious source of
such data. Ans. 14.
We find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 16 for
the reasons set forth by the Examiner.
With respect to claim 1 7, Appellants argue that Flanagan and Ganzer
fail to show or suggest that the event transmission includes "time period
information." App. Br. 42--43.
The Examiner finds that Ganzer, at column 2, lines 55---67, describes
the use of a timer which causes an alarm to be sounded for a selected period
of time. Ans. 14.
We find that the timer of Ganzer, as controlled by received event
information, includes the claimed "time period information." The Examiner
did not err in rejecting claim 17.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 and 19,
asserting that Flanagan and Ganzer fail to show or suggest event
transmission information including a message, extracting the message from
the event transmission information, formatting the message, broadcasting the
formatted message and receiving and displaying the formatted message.
App. Br. 44--45.
The Examiner finds that Flanagan discloses receipt and transmission
of a message, as depicted in Figure 6, where the message is extracted from
the event message, formatted and transmitted to the appropriate early
warning devices. The Examiner also points out that Ganzer, at column 6,
9
Appeal2013-008127
Application 13/157,529
lines 18-25, discloses graphic display of map or other information within the
emergency notification.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19 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
msc
10