Ex Parte Labrecque et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2015

13208776 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/208,776 08/12/2011
23529 7590
ADE & COMPANY INC
2157 Henderson Highway
WINNIPEG, MB R2GIP9
CANADA
03/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Serge Labrecque
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.
85075-832 ADB 8709
EXAMINER
PHAM, QUANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
uspto@adeco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGE LABRECQUE, ROBERT LABRECQUE,
and GERMAIN LABRECQUE
Appeal2014-001576
Application 13/208,776
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6. The Examiner's Answer states that the rejection of claims 15-
1 7 is withdrawn. Claims 7-14 are canceled and no other claims are pending.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-001576
Application 13/208,776
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method for use in raising pigs comprising:
locating a sow in a farrowing crate having a sow
containing area and at least one piglet area into which the
piglets can move;
providing a control unit;
providing a temperature sensor for communicating
signals indicative of temperature data to the control unit;
mounting the temperature sensor at the farrowing crate at
a sensing position in the crate so as to detect temperature of
piglets present in the farrowing crate after birth while avoiding
detecting the temperature of the sow and to provide signals
indicative of the detected temperature to the control unit;
the control unit being responsive to the signals to detect
an increase in temperature in the crate at the sensing position in
the crate and to provide an output indicative of the presence of a
piglet at the sensing position after birth;
and, in response to the output indicative of the presence
of a piglet at the sensing position after birth, communicating to
a worker a signal indicative of commencement of birth of the
piglets.
CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1--4 in view ofMarjollaine (CA 2,501,894 Al;
Apr. 12, 2005) and Tambo (WO 03/056907 Al; Jan. 10, 2002) and claims 5
and 6 in view ofMarjollaine, Tambo, and Smeds (US 4,368,377; Jan. 11,
1983). App. Br. 5.
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 15-17. Ans. 14.
2
Appeal2014-001576
Application 13/208,776
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in concluding claim 1 is obvious
in view of the combination of Marjollaine and Tambo because Marjollaine
discloses a method for detection of the birth process using methods entirely
different than the claimed method, and Tambo has no relevance to the
birthing process. App. Br. 7. Further, Appellants contend a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to combine the
references in the manner suggested by the Examiner. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds Marjollaine teaches a system for detecting the
birth of piglets using a motion sensor (Final Act. 5; Ans. 15) and Tambo
teaches an infrared temperature sensor for monitoring and controlling
temperatures in a stable for piglets (Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 15-16). Further,
the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to implement the prior art temperature sensors evidenced by
Tambo's piglet monitoring system with the birth-monitoring system of
Marjollaine. Ans. 15-17.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive and agree with the
Examiner. When a patent claims a structure known in the prior art that is
altered by mere substitution of one element for another known in the field,
the combination must do more than yield predictable results. KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As noted by the Examiner, both
Tambo and Marjollaine relate to the equipment for monitoring newly born
piglets. Final Act. 5-6. Here, the prior art, as evidenced by Marjollaine,
includes systems for monitoring the birth of piglets using sensors to detect
motion and/or weight, and we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to implement other kinds of sensors into Marjollaine's system,
3
Appeal2014-001576
Application 13/208,776
such as known infrared-temperature sensors evidenced by Tambo. See
Spec. 1-3 (describing prior art systems for monitoring piglets using various
types of sensors, including motion, weight, temperature, and sound sensors);
see also Spec. 4--5 (describing types of known sensors that can be used in
the claimed invention, "[p ]referably the sensor is an infrared heat sensor").
Further, Appellants present no evidence that the combination as claimed
would have been uniquely challenging to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
or yielded unexpected results. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S.
at 420-21 ). 1
Accordingly, we adopt as our own the Examiner's factual findings
and legal conclusions, and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as
well as claims 2---6 which are not argued separately (see Br. 5 ("It is accepted
that Claims 2 to 6 will stand or fall with Claim 1 ") ).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-6.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
lv
1 We note Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's
factual findings and legal conclusions in the Answer.
4