Ex Parte Mehmet

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

12447348 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/447,348 06/08/2009 Ahmet Ersal Mehmet FRYHP0167US 3160
23908 7590 09/05/2017
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
LOEPPKE, JANIE MEREDITH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
ipdocket @ rennerotto. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AHMET ERSAL MEHMET
Appeal 2015-0072341
Application 12/447,3482
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. FETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4—16, and 18—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Dec.
15, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 28, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 28, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Mar. 14, 2014).
2 Appellant identifies the inventor, Ahmet Ersal Mehmet, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007234
Application 12/447,348
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a cistern for a toilet,” and in
particular “to a control system for controlling the flushing of [the] cistern.”
Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim, and is
representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A control system for a cistern including a drain valve, the
control system comprising
a motion detector,
a controller,
a pump and
a pneumatic line connected to the pump and adapted in use
to be connected to the drain valve of the cistern,
wherein the motion detector and the controller are adapted
to interpret a plurality of different hand signals and operate the
pump to provide one of a plurality of pre-defmed flushing actions
associated with the detected one of the hand signals, thereby
enabling a plurality of flushing actions to be effected using a
single motion detector.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellsworth (US 5,432,959, iss. July 18, 1995),
Varotti (EP 1,582,637 A2, pub. Oct. 5, 2005), and Cretu-Petra (US
RE37,888 E, iss. Oct. 22, 2002).
II. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ellsworth, Cretu-Petra, Varotti, and Parsons (US 6,934,976 B2, iss. Aug. 30,
2005).
2
Appeal 2015-007234
Application 12/447,348
III. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ellsworth, Cretu-Petra, Varotti, and Laverty (US 5,508,510, iss. Apr. 16,
1996).
IV. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ellsworth, Cretu-Petra, Varotti, and Shoikhet (US
2007/0079432 Al, pub. Apr. 12, 2007).3
V. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ellsworth, Cretu-Petra, Varotti, and Parsons (US 6,934,976 B2, iss. Aug. 30,
2005).4
VI. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ellsworth, Varotti, Cretu-Petra, and Bensen (US 4,392,260, iss. July 12,
1983).
VII. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ellsworth, Cretu-Petra, Varotti, and Saadi (US 5,313,673, iss. May 24,
1994).
VIII. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ellsworth, Cretu-Petra, Varotti, and Oakes (US 2006/0277674 Al, pub.
Dec. 14, 2006).
IX. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ellsworth, Varotti, Cretu-Petra, and Harris (US
7,553,039 B2, iss. June 30, 2009).
3 We treat as inadvertent the Examiner’s omission of Cretu-Petra from the
rejection heading for claims 7 and 18, given that these claims depend from
claim 1. See Final Act 5.
4 We treat as inadvertent the Examiner’s omission of Cretu-Petra from the
rejection heading for claim 10 in view of its dependence from claim 1. See
Final Act 6.
3
Appeal 2015-007234
Application 12/447,348
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 16 as a group (App. Br.
6—12). We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining
claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Ellsworth does
not disclose enabling a plurality of flushing actions to be effected using a
single motion detector, as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 4—5. In this
regard, Appellant asserts that Ellsworth discloses separate selector buttons
for each flushing operation, i.e., power and economy. Id. at 5 (citing
Ellsworth, col. 3,11. 42 43, 52—54). And the Appellant charges that the
Examiner improperly relies on hindsight reasoning to determine that
Ellsworth’s power and economy switches could be replaced by a single
voice or thermal activated sensor. Id. Instead, we agree with, and adopt, the
Examiner’s findings and reply, as set forth at page 2 of the Answer.
Notably, Ellsworth at column 3, lines 42-46 describes “at least one
selector” for selecting either the power or economy flushing mode. One of
ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that “at least one selector”
indicates: (1) one selector may be used to select between two flushing
modes, and (2) more than one selector may be used to select between these
modes (see Ellsworth, Fig. 5,11. 42-4 (describing that the power flush mode
and economy flush mode has a corresponding mode for selection)). In the
one selector embodiment, one of ordinary skill would understand that a first
position of the selector could indicate a first mode (e.g., power flush);
4
Appeal 2015-007234
Application 12/447,348
whereas, a second position of the selector could represent a second mode
(e.g., economy flush). For example, a button selector could indicate a power
flush or economy flush based on whether a button is depressed or extended.
Because Ellsworth expressly describes using one selector to select
between a power flush and an economy flush, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that Ellsworth discloses a single sensor that
effects a plurality of flushing actions. Similarly, at least because the
Examiner’s rejection does not require modifying Ellsworth to disclose a
single sensor for activating one of a power flush and economy flush, we also
are not persuaded that the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight
reasoning to modify two sensors into a single sensor. See App. Br. 5.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s argument
Varotti does not disclose a user-activated sensor. The Examiner relies on
Varotti for describing pumps and pneumatic lines, not a user-activated
sensor. Final Act. 3.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Appellant’s arguments regarding Barrett
(US 5,187,818 A, iss. Feb. 23, 1993). See App. Br. 6. Barrett was not
applied by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Cretu-Petra does
not describe activation of preset programs using hand signals. Id. at 7
(Cretu-Petra describes “operation of [a] faucet in accordance with different
preset programs” by “only a push button or voice activation,” and “not by
hand signals”). Instead, we agree with, and adopt, the Examiner’s finding
that Cretu-Petra describes that sensor 10 and controller 20 interpret a
5
Appeal 2015-007234
Application 12/447,348
plurality of different hand signals (i.e., hands placed at different distances
from the sensor) to enable a plurality of actions, such as changing a flow rate
or temperature of a sink. See Final Act. 3^4 (citing Cretu-Petra, col. 5,11.
41-53).
By way of background, Cretu-Petra describes a water faucet with
touchless water temperature and water flow adjustment. Cretu-Petra, col. 1,
11. 16—18. At least one proximity sensor provides a water flow input signal
having a value corresponding to the distance of an object (e.g., a hand) from
the proximity sensor, and a microcomputer, responsive to the water flow
input signal, provides a flow of water corresponding to the distance of the
object from the proximity sensor. Id. at col. 1,1. 67 — col. 2,1. 10; claims 9,
20, and 23. Specifically, a microcomputer is programmed to process a
distance activation signal from a proximity sensor, such as sensor 10, as an
input request from the user to activate water delivery. Id. at col. 6,11. 50-52;
see also id. at col. 7,11. 12—17. The microcomputer is programmed to
recognize the input request as a water flow input. Id. at col. 6,11. 52—54.
For example, the microcomputer may be programmed to recognize a large
distance between a hand and sensor 10 as a request for a high water flow,
and a smaller distance as a request for lower water flow. Id. at col. 5,11. 46—
50; see also id. at col. 8,11. 4—12 (describing programming the
microcomputer to have a desired water flow when a user’s hand is at a
particular distance from the proximity sensor 10). In sum, Cretu-Petra
describes, at length, detecting hands placed at different distances from
sensor 10 to activate a water faucet at a pre-set water flow.
Appellant further contends that “[tjhere is nothing in Cretu-Petra
which hints at the use of a single motion detector for interpreting a plurality
6
Appeal 2015-007234
Application 12/447,348
of different hand signals to cause pre-defmed water flows.” App. Br. 7.
Yet, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings that
Cretu-Petra’s sensor 10 is a user-activated infrared sensor, and that sensor 10
and controller 20 are adapted to interpret a plurality of different hand signals
and enable a plurality of actions (i.e., economy flush, power flush) based on
the hand signal detected (i.e., distance of hand to sensor 10). Final Act. 3^4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Ellsworth would not have been obvious, absent hindsight, because Cretu-
Petra describes adjustment of flow only after water flow has been triggered,
which would serve no purpose in a toilet flushing application. App. Br. 6—7
(citing Cretu-Petra, col. 10,11. 1—3). As an initial matter, Appellant’s
citation to one exemplary embodiment does not adequately support
Appellant’s contention that Cretu-Petra requires activating water flow at
previously stored flow settings and using hand gestures only to perform
adjustments thereto. To the contrary, Cretu-Petra describes that water may
be activated by proximity sensor 10 (Cretu-Petra, col. 7,1. 15), and the
microcontroller may recognize a large distance as a request for a high water
flow, and a smaller distance as a request for a lower water flow, or vice
versa {id. at col. 5,11. 45—39). See also id. at claim 23.
In our view, the Examiner provides articulated reasoning with
adequate rational underpinning to support the obviousness conclusion.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to modify
the user activated sensor of Ellsworth with an infrared proximity sensor, as
taught by Cretu-Petra, “to provide a more sanitary actuation device that
would not require the user to touch the sensor.” Final Act. 4. ft is clear
from the record that the Examiner’s rejection is based on the disclosures of
7
Appeal 2015-007234
Application 12/447,348
the applied prior art references, and not on the disclosure of Appellant’s
application.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and claims 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 16, which fall with claim
1.
Rejections II—IX
Each of claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 18—20 depends from
independent claim 1. Appellant does not present any argument in support of
the patentability of these dependent claims except to assert that each is
allowable for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 8—
10. We are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 18—
20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4—16, and 18—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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
8