Ex Parte LEM et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2019

14466410 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/466,410 08/22/2014
28395 7590 06/19/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JeroenLEM
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.
83450004 1095
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, DOUGLAS X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROEN LEM, BENJAMIN EILEBRECHT,
MARCEL MATHISSEN, ACHIM LINDNER,
RAINER VOGT, MARIAN WALTER,
and STEFFEN LEONHARDT
Appeal2018-006198 1
Application 14/466,410
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies LLC, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
2 In our Decision, we refer to: the Specification filed August 22, 2014
("Spec.") of Application 14/466,410 (the "'410 Application"); the Final
Office Action mailed May 5, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed
December 3, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed March 29,
2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed May 29, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
The invention relates to sensors for contactless electrocardiographic
measurement on a person, including sensor arrays and seats or couches in
vehicles equipped with sensor arrays. Claims 1, 7, and 13, reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix, illustrate the claimed subject matter:
1. A contactless electrocardiographic sensor, comprising:
a carrier for mounting the sensor to an object;
an electrocardiographic measurement electrode
supported by the carrier for movement relative thereto,
wherein the electrode comprises a two-dimensional,
electrically conductive electrode; and
a bellows disposed between the carrier and the
electrode, the bellows selectively inflatable and deflatable to
selectively move the electrode toward and away,
respectively, from a person without contacting the person to
obtain a contactless electrocardiographic measurement.
7. Apparatus for electrocardiographic measurement of a
person seated on a seat having a seat back, comprising:
a carrier adapted for mounting to the seat back;
an electrically conductive electrocardiographic
measurement electrode connected with the carrier by an
elastic element; and
a bellows disposed between the carrier and the
electrode, inflation of the bellows deflecting the elastic
element to move the electrode away from the carrier toward
the person without the electrode contacting the person.
13. A seat comprising:
a bellows;
a pump in fluid communication with the bellows;
an electrically conductive electrocardiographic
measurement electrode disposed on the bellows; and
2
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
an electronic control module actuating the pump to
inflate the bellows urging the electrode toward a person
seated on the seat without contacting the person with the
electrode to provide a contactless electrocardiographic
measurement.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Sloop
Norton
Muramatsu et al.
("Muramatsu") 3
us 5,815,864
US 6,968,263 B 1
JP 2009 172204 A
REJECTIONS
Oct. 6, 1998
Nov. 22, 2005
Aug. 6,2009
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) over Muramatsu. Final Act. 2-6.
2. Claims 3, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muramatsu in
view of Sloop. Id. at 7-8.
3. Claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muramatsu in
view of Norton. Id. at 8.
OPINION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13,
14, 16, and 17 as anticipated by Muramatsu. Final Act. 2-6.
3 The Examiner relies on the machine translation of record. Final Act. 2.
Appellants do not object. Thus, we will also rely on, and cite to, the
machine translation.
3
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To serve as an anticipatory reference, "the
reference must disclose each and every element of the claimed invention,
whether it does so explicitly or inherently." In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Appellants argue that Muramatsu does not disclose an electrically
conductive electrode, as required by independent claims 1, 7, and 13. App.
Br. 3--4. Appellants contend that Muramatsu's disclosure of "capacitive
electrodes or the like" does not disclose that the electrodes are electrically
conductive. Id. at 4.
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable scope
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must be read
in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id.
The Examiner interprets "electrically conductive electrode" as an
electrode capable of detecting, sensing, and/or transmitting an electrical
signal. Ans. 3. Appellants argue that "conductive" is distinguishable from
"resistive, capacitive, inductive, etc.," but we find nothing in the
Specification to support such distinctions. See Reply Br. 2. We further find
nothing in the Specification that conflicts with the Examiner's interpretation.
Muramatsu teaches " [ e] lectrocardio graphic sensor electrodes ... composed
of, for example, capacitive electrodes or the like." Muramatsu ,r 1 7. Thus,
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have read
Muramatsu as disclosing electrodes more generally than only capacitive
electrodes. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) ("[I]n considering
4
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.").
Consequently, Muramatsu discloses the claimed electrodes. Appellants'
argument regarding electrically conductive electrodes is not persuasive of
reversible error.
Appellants argue that Muramatsu does not disclose a pressure sensor
registering a pressure in the bellows, as recited in claims 2, 8, and 14. App.
Br. 4. The Examiner finds that Muramatsu discloses a seat-type back
pressure distribution sensor 261 provided on the back portion of the seat and
configured to measure the load distribution between the seat back portion
and the body of the driver. 4 Ans. 4.
Muramatsu' s Figure 4 is reproduced below:
A seat-type back pressure distribution sensor 261 is provided on the
back portion (backrest portion) of the seat 10 so that the load distribution
4 Labels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their
presentation in the original document.
5
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
between the seat related to the back portion of the seat and the body of the
driver can be measured. Muramatsu ,r 37. A seat-type seating surface
pressure distribution sensor 262 is provided on the seat surface portion of the
seat 10 so that the load distribution between the seat related to the seat's seat
surface portion and the body of the driver can be measured. Id. The
pressure distribution measured by these pressure distribution sensors is input
to the control processing unit 100. Id.
Unlike Muramatsu, the claimed invention measures pressure in the
bellows. Figure 4 from the '410 Application, reproduced below, illustrates
this point:
/
' 44
Figure 4 of the '410 Application shows a cross-sectional view of a
sensor in the claimed invention. Spec. ,r 25. The sensor comprises a two-
dimensional carrier 37 for fastening the sensor on an object, such as the back
of a vehicle seat, and an electrically conductive, two-dimensional electrode
24. Id. Bellows 40 can be inflated and deflated by pump 43. Id. Distance
sensor 45 and pressure sensor 46 are provided in the bellows. Id. ,r 39.
In contrast to Muramatsu, which describes a pressure sensor between
the body and the bellows, the invention in claims 2, 8, and 14 requires "a
pressure sensor registering a pressure in the bellows." App. Br., Claims
6
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
Appx 1-3. We interpret the claim as requiring a pressure sensor in the
bellows in order to "register[] a pressure in the bellows" as recited in the
claim and described in the Specification. The Examiner does not direct us to
a pressure sensor in the bellows of Muramatsu. For this reason, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 8, and 14.
Appellants also argue that Muramatsu does not disclose an electrode
mounted to a carrier by an elastic element, as required by claims 5, 7, 11,
and 17. App. Br. 4--5. Claims 5 and 11 require that the electrode is mounted
to the carrier by an elastic element. App. Br., Claims Appx 1-2. Claim 7
requires that the electrode is connected with the carrier by an elastic element.
Id. Claim 1 7 recites the seat of claim 13, further comprising an elastic
support element connecting the electrode with the seat. App. Br. 3.
The only description of an elastic element or elastic support element
in the Specification is in relation to Figure 2: "electrode 24 is connected to
carrier 37 by means of elastic support elements 38, preferably made of foam,
which are arranged on the edge of electrode 24." Spec. ,r 36. Figures 2 and
3 of the '410 Application are reproduced below:
7
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
Fig, 2 Fig, 3
Figure 2 schematically shows a cross-sectional view of a sensor in
accordance with an embodiment of the claimed invention in a first operating
position. Spec. ,r 23. Figure 3 shows the same cross-sectional view of
Figure 2 in a second operating position. Spec. ,r 24. The sensor comprises a
two-dimensional (substantially-flat) carrier 37 for fastening the sensor to an
object such as the back of a vehicle seat. Spec. ,r 36. Bellows 40, interposed
between electrode 24 and carrier 37, can be deflated (as in Figure 2) or
inflated (as in Figure 3). Elastic support element 38 is shown at the edge of
electrode 24 and bellows 40. Spec. ,r 36.
The Examiner finds that airbags 241-247 of Muramatsu meet the
elastic element/ elastic support element limitations of claims 5, 7, 11, and 1 7.
Final Act. 4, 6. Muramatsu Figure 6 is reproduced below:
8
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
)
203
202
i
210(220)
'
/
,230
I
/
/204
Muramatsu Figure 6 illustrates electrode unit 201 composed of
electrode unit frame portion 202 (identified as the claimed "carrier" by the
Examiner) and electrode unit movable portion 230 that is displaced relative
to 202. Muramatsu ,r 39. Elements 210 and 220 are electrocardiogram
sensor electrodes. Muramatsu Abstract. The hexagonal shapes within
electrode unit movable portion 230 and electrodes 210 and 220 are airbag
cells 241-247. Muramatsu ,r 35.
Our review of Muramatsu's figures and description indicates that
electrodes 210 and 220 are connected with or mounted to carrier 202 by
airbag cells 241-247, which can be inflated and deflated, thus considered
"elastic."5 In this case, portions of the airbags act as bellows, and portions
5 "Elastic" is defined, with respect to material substances, as "that which
spontaneously resumes (after a longer or shorter interval) its normal bulk or
shape after having been contracted, dilated, or distorted by external force."
See https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/60128?redirectedFrom=elastic#eid,
last visited June 13, 2019. This definition is consistent Appellants use of
this term in the Specification.
9
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
act as elastic elements. We note, also, that vehicle seats are comprised of
foam that would meet the elastic element limitation.
"The law of anticipation does not require that the reference 'teach'
what the subject [application] teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly
'prior art,' it is only necessary that the claims under attack[] 'read on'
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are
found in the reference." Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, claims 5, 7, 11, and 17
read on Muramatsu. 6 We sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims
over the reference.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 9, and 15 as obvious over
Muramatsu in view of Sloop. Final Act. 7. Appellants argue that Sloop
does not cure the deficiencies of Muramatsu. App. Br. 5.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 do not recite "a pressure sensor registering a
pressure in the bellows," the limitation we find is missing from Muramatsu.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 12, and 18 as obvious
over Muramatsu in view of Norton. Final Act. 8. Appellants argue that
Norton does not cure the deficiencies of Muramatsu. App. Br. 5-6.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 do not recite "a pressure sensor registering a
pressure in the bellows," the limitation we find is missing from Muramatsu.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims.
6 In the event of further prosecution, we note for the record that claim 11
does not appear to further limit claim 7.
10
Appeal2018-006198
Application 14/466,410
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 2, 8, and 14 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 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-IN-PART
11