Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

12965309 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/965,309 12/10/2010
14941 7590 09/29/2016
HONEYWELL/CONLEY ROSE
Honeywell International Inc
115 Tabor Road
PO Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nukala Sateesh Kumar
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.
H0028057 _ 4341-33900 6544
EXAMINER
MINCARELLI, JAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NUKALA SATEESH KUMAR,
ARUNKUMAR KAMALAKANNAN,
SEAN STINSON, and
KONDAIAH DASARI
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nukala Sateesh Kumar, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-14. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
1 The Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A system comprising:
a plurality of wireless gas detectors in a monitored
reg10n;
at least one processor to receive location and exposure
data from members of the plurality;
a storage device coupled to the processor to store the
received location and exposure data; [and]
circuitry to analyze the stored location and exposure data
for selected trends, wherein the processor defines a plurality of
zones in the monitored region responsive to the location and
exposure data received from the members of the plurality of
wireless gas detectors.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Johnson
Holler
Upstill
Robinson
US 2011/0037599 Al
US 2011/0115629 Al
US 8,239,130 Bl
WO 2008/134607 Al
The following rejections are before us for review:
Feb. 17, 2011
May 19, 2011
Aug. 7, 2012
Nov. 6, 2008
1. Claims 1---6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holler, Robinson, Johnson and Upstill.
2
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
2. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robinson, Johnson and Upstill.
3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Robinson, Upstill, Johnson and Holler.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1---6 and 8-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holler, Robinson, Johnson and
Upstill?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson, Johnson and Upstill?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Robinson, Upstill, Johnson and Holler?
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner's factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holler, Robinson, Johnson and Upstill.
The Appellants argued claims 1---6 and 8-10 as a group. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims
2---6 and 8-10 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2007).
3
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
The Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive as to error in the
rejection.
The principal argument is that none of the references disclose
"'circuitry to analyze the stored location and exposure data for selected
trends, wherein the processor defines a plurality of zones in the monitored
region responsive to the location and exposure data received from the
members of the plurality of wireless gas detectors' (claim 1, lines 7-1 O)"
(App. Br. 5). There are two claim limitations to consider: (a) "circuitry to
analyze the stored location and exposure data for selected trends" and (b) a
"processor [that] defines a plurality of zones in [a] monitored region
responsive to the location and exposure data received from the members of
the plurality of wireless gas detectors."
We begin by construing said first claim limitation.
The Specification does not expressly disclose a "circuitry" whose
function it is to analyze stored location and exposure data for selected trends.
The pertinent disclosure can be found in paragraphs 21-31 of the
Specification. Specifically, referring to Figure 2, the Specification states
that "[t]he central station 20 can then transfer that information to module 24
for analysis and forwarding as automatically generated compliance
information 40, and exposure and trend information 44." Spec. para. 24.
See para. 26 ("All such information, as discussed below, can also be
forwarded to module 24 to be incorporated into on-going trend analysis.").
See also para 30: "In summary, system 10 provides access and control of
centralized data stored in unit 20a and available to module 24 to carry out
analysis and establish trends or other warning information."). Module 24 is
4
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
the only element disclosed in the Specification that has an analysis function.
Thus, in light of the Specification we reasonably broadly construe the claim
term "circuitry" as covering the disclosed module 24. Module 24 is known.
See paragraph 17 of the Specification:
[0017] Fleet manager module 24 can correspond to a
commercially available system marked under the "Fleet
Manager" brand name by BW Technologies business unit of the
assignee hereof. Such systems can store and analyze data from
a plurality of gas detectors. Calibration records for the members
of the plurality can be stored and updated periodically or as
needed. Such records can be analyzed and trends detected
relative to the on-going performance of one or more detectors as
part of a gas detector management system.
Therefore, in light of the Specification, we reasonably broadly construe the
claim term "circuitry" as covering the disclosed module 24. Also, because
the module was known at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in
the art would further reasonably interpret the claimed "circuitry" as broadly
covering a known module. Notwithstanding the claimed "circuitry" was
known, the Examiner cited paragraph 49 of Holler as evidence of that said
"circuitry" was disclosed in the prior art. See Final Act. 7. The Holler
passage describes an application 198c that "analyses the collected monitored
data in terms of [a] set of criteria .... "
The structural difference between Roller's application 198c and the
claimed "circuitry" is not apparent. Both analyze data based on criteria. If
there is a difference it would appear to be in what is being analyzed. For the
claimed "circuitry," the information being analyzed is "stored location and
exposure data for selected trends" (claim 1 ). There is insufficient evidence
that the "circuitry" is functionally affected by analyzing "stored location and
5
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
exposure data for selected trends" (claim 1 ), rather than some other type of
information which would so affect the circuitry. It is thus reasonable to
characterize the information being analyzed as printed matter. Given that
printed matter is not given patentable weight, the "stored location and
exposure data for selected trends" claim limitations - as a distinction
between the Appellants' "circuitry" and that Roller's application 198c- are
not patentably consequential. They amount to nonfunctional descriptive
material. "[N]on-functional descriptive material, being useful and
intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight." Ex
parte Graf, Appeal 2012-003941, 2013 WL 3873066, at *4 (PTAB July 23,
2013) (non-precedential), aff'd, In re Graf, 585 F. App'x. 1012 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (non-precedential); cf In re DiStefano, No. 2015-1453 (Fed. Cir.
2015); as explained in In re Xiao, 462 F.App'x. 947, 950-52 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (non-precedential):
[T]he Board did not create a new "mental distinctions" rule in
denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board
simply expressed the above-described functional relationship
standard in an alternative formulation---consistent with our
precedents-when it concluded that any given position label's
function . . . is a distinction "discemable only to the human
mind." Board Decision at 6; see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (describing printed matter as "useful and
intelligible only to the human mind") (quoting In re Bernhart,
417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).
"The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting
of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally
unrelated limitations." King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267,
1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
6
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
We note that, as part of the argument, the Appellants point out that
"[ s ]ince the processor's operation is 'responsive to the location and exposure
data', the location and exposure data do, in fact, impart structural features to
the processor." App. Br. 6. The Appellants would thus dispute that the
"stored location and exposure data for selected trends" (claim 1) are merely
nonfunctional descriptive material; rather, they functionally affect the
"processor." However, claim 1 does not associate the "stored location and
exposure data for selected trends" (claim 1) to the processor. They are
associated with the "circuitry." Nothing in claim 1 requires the processor to
process "stored location and exposure data for selected trends" (claim 1 ).
According to claim 1, the claimed circuitry need only define zones from this
data in a monitoring region, and, as we found supra, the application 198 in
Holler uses such filters to collect particularized data in a report form. The
type of data collected, as we found supra, remains nonfunctional descriptive
material.
We tum now to the second claim limitation at issue: a "processor
[that] defines a plurality of zones in [a] monitored region responsive to the
location and exposure data received from the members of the plurality of
wireless gas detectors."
The Specification does not expressly disclose a "processor" that
"defines a plurality of zones in [a] monitored region responsive to the
location and exposure data received from the members of the plurality of
wireless gas detectors." The Specification appears to give that sort of
function to "central station 20." See Spec. para. 25 ("In methods in
accordance with the present invention, the central station 20 can configure a
7
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
predefined Region R into multiple zones .... The central station can
graphically differentiate the multiple zones based on the assigned criticality
of each zone.").
According to the Specification, "[ c ]entral station 20 can include
executable configuration/monitoring software 24 stored on a computer
readable medium for execution by [a] processor( s) 22, and can include a
graphical user interface 28." Spec. para. 22. Thus, central station 20
appears to cover a general purpose computer. In that regard, "[t]he user
interface 28 can include a viewing screen 26, as would be known by those of
skill in the art, for displaying interactive and viewing windows." Spec. para.
23. The Specification goes on to disclose that
[ e Jach wireless device 12-1 in the region R can periodically send
ambient condition data, such as gas data, and location data to the
central station 20. The central station 20 can use data received
from the wireless, such as 12-1, devices to compute the alarm
level for each zone. Based on the received data, the central
station 20 can determine whether a particular zone is an active
zone and graphically represent that zone accordingly.
Spec. para. 26 (emphasis added).
Claim 1 requires a plurality of zones in a monitored region to be
"defined." But one of ordinary skill in the art reading the Specification
would understand that this can be accomplished simply by having zones
depicted on a user interface.
Claim 1 also requires said defined plurality of zones to be "responsive
to the location and exposure data received from the members of the plurality
of wireless gas detectors." One of ordinary skill in the art reading the
Specification would understand that this can be accomplished simply by
having the depicted zones on the user interface be representative of the
8
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
"location and exposure data received from the members of the plurality of
wireless gas detectors."
Given these disclosures, the claim limitation "processor [that] defines
a plurality of zones in [a] monitored region responsive to the location and
exposure data received from the members of the plurality of wireless gas
detectors" reasonably, broadly covers a general purpose computer with a
known user interface that graphically depicts zones in a monitored region
representative of the "location and exposure data received from the members
of the plurality of wireless gas detectors."
Regarding this second limitation at issue, the Appellants argue that
Johnson, Jr. et al. does not disclose any processor or process that operates on
a "monitored 'region' such as a facility that can be divided into a plurality of
'zones' such as individual rooms or even particular regions of a room" as
suggested by the Examiner.
App. Br. 8. But the subject matter covered by claim 1 is not so limited.
Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising a "processor" that "defines a
plurality of zones in the monitored region." There is no limitation requiring
a processor or process to operate on a monitored region that can be divided
into a plurality of zones.
Nevertheless, while the Appellants appear to take issue with the
Examiner's position that "Johnson [] arguably discloses that the processor
defines a plurality of regions in the monitored region because Johnson
teaches a monitored 'region' such as a facility that can be divided into a
plurality of 'zones' such as individual rooms or even particular regions of a
9
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
Room" (Final Act. 8), the Appellants do not address the disclosures that the
Examiner relies upon (except to repeat the Examiner's statements). See
App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner cited Figure 4 and paragraphs 70, 71, 74, and
76. Final Act. 8. These appear to show a sensor network implementing real
time locating and gas exposure monitoring in a facility. "The facility may
include rooms 415A-D." Johnson, para. 70. Johnson further discloses a
user interface for monitoring the gas sensors and the location and gas
exposure levels of users. See Johnson, paras. 123 and 124. Based on these
disclosures, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's position regarding the second claim limitation at issue.
The remaining arguments are unpersuasive as to error in the rejection.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Because the remaining claims 2---6 and 8-10 stand or fall with claim 1, their
rejection is sustained as well.
The rejection of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robinson, Johnson, and Upstill.
The Appellants challenge the rejection using the same arguments used
to challenge the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. We find them
unpersuasive for the same reasons.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S. C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Robinson, Upstill, Johnson, and Holler.
The Appellants do not appear to have challenged this rejection.
Accordingly, the rejection is sustained.
10
Appeal2014-003160
Application 12/965,309
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Holler, Robinson, Johnson and Upstill is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robinson, Johnson and Upstill is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robinson, Upstill, Johnson and Holler is affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6 and 8-14 is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED
11