Ex parte McGonigal et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 7, 1998

08361163 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 7, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 21, 1994. 1
According to applicants, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/889,426, filed May 28, 1992, abandoned; which
is a continuation-in-part of Application 07/628,623, filed
December 19, 1990, abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MARK G. McGONIGAL AND
ADELBERT M. GILLEN
_____________
Appeal No. 96-3264
Application 08/361,1631
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and KRASS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
2
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 7
through 11 and 17 through 26. In an Amendment After Final
(paper number 18), claim 22 was amended.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for locating a remote control device that is used to control
an appliance.
Claim 22 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
22. In an appliance having a wireless remote control
device, the remote control device being capable of controlling
the appliance, the appliance having a source of power, the
remote control device having a separate source of power, the
appliance including a transmitter, the transmitter being
actuated by a switch, the transmitter being capable of
emitting a signal, the remote control device including a
receiver capable of receiving the signal emitted by the
transmitter, the receiver being connected to an alarm device,
wherein the alarm device generates an alarm when the switch is
actuated,
the improvement wherein:
the receiver has a power source,
the receiver has an output which is connected to a first
input of an OR gate, the output of the receiver also being
connected to the alarm device,
Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
A copy of the translation of this reference is attached.2
3
a pulse generator is connected to a second input of the
OR gate, and
the OR gate has an output connected to an electronic
switch which, when closed, connects the power source to the
receiver.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Oka 63-314994 Dec. 22, 1988
(Japanese Patent Publication) 2
Livingstone et al.(Livingstone) WO91/17634 Nov. 14,
1991
(PCT Application)
Claims 7 through 11 and 17 through 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view
of Livingstone and common knowledge.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7
through 11 and 17 through 26.
The examiner’s rejection is as follows (Answer, pages 3
and 4):
Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
4
Oka . . . discloses an appliance having a
wireless remote control device, where the remote
control device is capable of controlling the
appliance (see Fig. 1). The appliance has a source
of power and the remote control device has a
separate source of power (Fig. 1). The Appliance
includes a transmitter (unit 4) which is actuated by
a manually depressed switch (unit 5). The
transmitter 4 emits a signal which is received by
the receiver 3. The receiver inherently includes a
suitable alarm device which generates an alarm in
response to a received signal. The Oka reference
does not have the remote control device including
means for intermittently connecting the power source
to the receiver.
The Livingstone reference discloses on p. 1,
lines 12-23, the use of a receiver which includes
means for intermittently connecting the power source
to the receiver for the purpose of conserving power
so that the power source (battery) which powers the
receiver has an extended life.
Since Oka and Livingstone are both from the same
field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by
Livingstone regarding the intermittent application
of power to the receiver would have been recognized
in the pertinent art of Oka.
Appellants and the examiner agree that “[i]t would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to intermittently apply power
to the receiver as taught by Livingstone in the device of Oka
for the purpose of conserving power so that the power source
(battery) which powers the receiver has an extended life”
Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
5
(Brief, page 9; Answer, page 4).
With respect to the claimed receiver circuitry for
intermittently connecting the power source to the receiver,
the examiner concludes (Answer, pages 4 and 5) that:
Although the claimed circuitry for the
intermittent connecting means is not shown by
Livingstone, it is old and well known in the art of
remote controlled devices as an obvious design
choice to construct the claimed intermittent
connecting means. For example, the use of a second
(or auxiliary) power source to operate the pulse
generator independently of the receiver power source
is an obvious matter of choice in design only as
evidenced by the applicant’s lack of use of a second
(or auxiliary) power source in claim 22.
Further, the relevant OR gate, pulse generator,
and receiver connections as well as the presence of
an R-C circuit are old and well known in the art of
detection of remote controlled signals and further,
the claimed commonly-used elements in the circuit
are not connected/structured in any way that would
display any new or unexpected result from the
connections used in prior detection circuits. For
example, the receiver 100, diode 104, and R-C
circuit as shown in Fig. 6 are typical of the old
and well known AM detector circuit. Further, it is
commonly known that R-C circuitry has been used as a
peak detection circuit (see applicant’s
specification - p. 13, lines 10-12).
There is not a scintilla of evidence in the record to
support any of the examiner’s conclusions. “Allegations
concerning specific ‘knowledge’ of the prior art, which might
Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
6
be peculiar to a particular art should . . . be supported and
the appellant similarly given the opportunity to make a
challenge.” In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 917, 214 USPQ 673, 677
(CCPA 1982). In light of appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages
7 through 12) that the cited prior art neither teaches nor
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
specifically claimed connections of the receiver, the R-C
circuit, and the pulse generator to the inputs of the OR gate,
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 7 through
11 and 17 through 22. The obviousness rejection of claims 23
through 26 is likewise reversed because the applied references
lack the circuitry to accomplish the steps recited in these
claims.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 7 through
11 and 17 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
7
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
8
Allen J. Jacobson
Attorney at Law
13310 Summit Square Center
Route 413 & Double Woods Road
Langhorne, Penna. 19047