Ex Parte Laflamme et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2013

10831114 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENOIT LAFLAMME and DANIEL GAUDREAU

___________

Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, ERIC B. CHEN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 76-92, 94-137, and 139-148. Claims 1-75, 93, and 138 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a controller for identifying an
abnormal operational condition in a bathing unit system that includes a
power source and bathing unit components. The controller includes a power
control device and a processing module. In a first state, the power control
device enables the power source to supply power to the bathing unit
components, and in a second state, the power control device prevents the
power source from supplying power to the bathing unit components. The
processing module can detect an abnormal operational condition associated
with the bathing unit system and the controller. Upon detection of the
abnormal operational condition, the processing module causes the power
control device to acquire the second state. (Abstract.)
Claim 76 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
76. A controller for controlling a set of bathing unit
components in a bathing unit system, said controller
comprising:
a) a circuit element including a set of actuators operative for
enabling flow of power to bathing unit components in the set of
bathing unit components, each actuator being operative for
acquiring:
i. a first operative state, in which flow of power is enabled;
and
ii. a second operative state, in which flow of power is
disabled;
Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114

3
b) a processing module in communication with said circuit
element, said processing module being operative for:
i. transmitting control signals to the circuit element for
selectively controlling a supply of power to bathing unit
components in the set of bathing unit components; and
ii. detecting an abnormal operational condition associated
with said controller;
c) a power control device in communication with said
processing module, said power control device being responsive
to detection of an abnormal operational condition associated
with said controller for preventing supply of power to bathing
unit components in the set of bathing unit components through
the circuit element irrespective of operative states associated to
actuators in the set of actuators and without preventing supply
of power to the processing module.

Claims 76, 77, 92, 94-97, 99-101, 114-117, 119-122, 137, 139-142
and 144-146 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cline (U.S. Patent No. 6,253,121 B1; June 26, 2001)1 and Goodpaster
(U.S. Patent No. 6,058,353; May 2, 2000).
Claims 78, 102 and 123 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cline, Goodpaster, and Tompkins (U.S. Patent No.
5,361,215; Nov. 1, 1994).
Claims 79, 103, and 124 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cline, Goodpaster, and Anders (U.S. Patent No.
4,586,180; Apr. 29, 1986).
Claims 80, 81, 98, 104, 105, 118, 125, 126, and 143 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cline, Goodpaster, and
Greeve (U.S. Patent No. 5,708,548; Jan. 13, 1998).

1 Referred to as “Cline-2” by the Examiner and Appellants.
Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114

4
Claims 82, 83, 106, 108, 127, and 128 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cline, Goodpaster, and Lin (U.S. Patent
No. 5,835,885; Nov. 10, 1998).
Claims 82, 84, 106, 107, 127, and 129 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cline, Goodpaster, and Kawate (U.S.
Patent No. 5,536,980; July 16, 1996).
Claims 85, 109, and 130 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cline, Goodpaster, and Polster (U.S. Patent No.
4,897,755; Jan. 30, 1990).
Claims 86, 87, 89-91, 110, 112, 113, 131, 132, and 134-136 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cline,
Goodpaster, and Cline (U.S. Patent No. 6,643,108 B2; Nov. 4, 2003).2
Claims 88, 111, and 133 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cline, Goodpaster, and Mudge (U.S. Patent No.
6,850,159 B1; Feb. 1, 2005).
Claims 147 and 148 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cline, Goodpaster, and Fujiwara (U.S. Patent No.
5,572,177; Nov. 5, 1996).3

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 17-20) that the
combination of Cline and Goodpaster would not have rendered obvious

2 Referred to as “Cline-1” by the Examiner and Appellants.
3 Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of
dependent claims 78-91, 98, 102-113, 118, 123-136, and 143 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any such arguments are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114

5
independent claim 76, which includes the limitations “a power control
device . . . being responsive to detection of an abnormal operational
condition . . . irrespective of operative states associated to actuators in the set
of actuators and without preventing supply of power to the processing
module.”
The Examiner found that the ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) of
Cline, which disconnects spa equipment, corresponds to the limitation
“being responsive to detection of an abnormal operational condition . . .
without preventing supply of power to the processing module.” (Ans. 5; see
Cline, col. 10, ll. 5-19.) The Examiner acknowledged that Cline does not
disclose the limitation “irrespective of operative states associated to
actuators in the set of actuators” and thus, relied upon Goodpaster for
teaching backup protection. (Ans. 6; Goodpaster, col. 1, ll. 34-35.) The
Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to incorporate
an upstream relay, as disclosed by Goodpaster, upstream of the actuators [of
Cline] . . . in order to provide a means for preventing power from being
provided to the bathing unit components through the actuators.” (Ans. 6.)
We agree with the Examiner.
Cline relates to “control systems for bathing systems such as portable
spas.” (Col. 1, ll. 18-19.) Figure 2A of Cline illustrates a schematic block
diagram of a control for a bathing system (col. 4, ll. 21-23), which includes
equipment to heat and manage water quality (e.g., light, blower and pumps)
connected to relays 36, under the control of relay drivers 34 that are
selectively driven by a microcomputer 35 (col. 6, ll. 4-9). Figure 4 of Cline
illustrates the GFCI circuit 27 “configured to be in close relationship with
the electrical system which controls the spa equipment.” (Col. 9, ll. 62-65.)
Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114

6
The microcomputer 35 responds to error messages produced by the GFCI
circuit 27 and “opens all other relays, 36, disconnecting any other
components, such as pumps, blowers and lights.” (Col. 10, ll. 5-19.) Thus,
the microcomputer 35 would require power to disconnect such components
in response to the error message, and accordingly, Cline teaches the
limitation “without preventing supply of power to the processing module.”
Goodpaster relates to “backup protection for circuit breaker failure.”
(Abstract.) Goodpaster explains that “[a]s a safety precaution, backup
protection must be provided for relay and circuit breaker failure or
malfunction.” (Col. 1, ll. 34-35.) Goodpaster further explains that “[i]f a
fault occurred on a particular feeder and the relay associated with that feeder
malfunctioned or failed to detect the fault, the upstream relay would
eventually detect the fault and trip all of the circuit breakers downstream of
it.” (Col. 1, ll. 45-49.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the upstream relay of Goodpaster, with the bathing systems of
Cline, would improve Cline by providing backup protection for the electrical
system, such as the actuators. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, this combination teaches the limitation
“irrespective of operative states associated to actuators in the set of
actuators.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6) that modifying Cline
to include the upstream relay of Goodpaster would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that “according to the teachings of Cline-2, the
relays would have to be in a deactivated/open state and hence the supply of
power would not be prevented irrespective of operative states associated to
the relays.” (Br. 18.) However, the Examiner cited to Goodpaster, rather
Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114

7
than Cline for teaching the limitation “irrespective of operative states
associated to actuators in the set of actuators.”
Appellants also argue:
according to the teachings of Goodpaster, the supply of power
would be prevented by the circuit breakers in the feeder line
supplying power to the bathing unit system as a whole resulting
in the power being cut from the bathing unit system as a whole
(including bathing unit components and the controller).
(Br. 18 (emphasis in original).) However, the Examiner articulated that “[i]t
would have been obvious . . . to incorporate an upstream relay, as disclosed
by Goodpaster, upstream of the actuators in the controller” of Cline (Ans. 6
(emphasis added)), rather than incorporating the upstream relay of
Goodpaster with “the power being cut from the bathing unit system as a
whole (including bathing unit components and the controller),” as argued by
Appellants (Br. 18 (emphasis omitted)). Furthermore, Appellants have not
provided any persuasive evidence to illustrate that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combine Cline and Goodpaster that results in power
being cut from the entire bathing unit system.
Appellants further argue that “in order to modify the teachings of
Cline-2 based on Goodpaster in such a way as to yield the claimed
invention, use of knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure would
be required, and hence any reconstruction on that basis would be improper.”
(Br. 20.) However, as discussed previously, the combination of Cline and
Goodpaster is based on the improvement of a similar device in the same way
as in the prior art.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Cline and
Goodpaster would have rendered obvious independent claim 76, which
includes the limitation “a power control device . . . being responsive to
Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114

8
detection of an abnormal operational condition . . . irrespective of operative
states associated to actuators in the set of actuators and without preventing
supply of power to the processing module.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 76 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 77, 92, 94-97, 99, and 100 depend from
claim 76, and Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 77, 92,
94-97, 99, and 100 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 76.
Independent claims 101, 121, and 146 recite limitations similar to
those discussed with respect to independent claim 76, and Appellants have
not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 101, 121, and 146, as well as
dependent claims 114-117, 119, 120, 122, 137-142, 144, and 145, for the
same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 76.
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of independent
claims 147 and 148 separately (Br. 25-30), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these
independent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that
“Fujiwara does not in any way address this deficiency of the combination of
Cline-2 and Goodpaster.” (Br. 27, 30.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 76,
which recites limitations similar to independent claims 147 and 148.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Appeal 2010-008665
Application 10/831,114

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 76-92, 94-137, and 139-148
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj