Ex Parte Meyer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2014

11557001 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/557,001 11/06/2006 Randall T. Meyer 2141.000300/TDM 9736
23720 7590 03/28/2014
WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON, TX 77042
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RANDALL T. MEYER
____________

Appeal 2011-009510
Application 11/557,001
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009510
Application 11/557,001

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-21. Claims 7 and 16 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to “a monitoring system for indicating when
water temperature falls below a predetermined sanitary temperature” (Spec.
2:8-9). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for monitoring water temperature,
comprising:

activating an alarm in response to sensing a temperature
of water falling below a preselected temperature sufficient to
sanitize objects immersed in the water so that immersing
objects in the water for at least one half minute does not sanitize
surfaces of the object.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lüssi

Fima
US 5,408,917

US 6,766,835 B1
Apr. 25, 1995

July 27, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lüssi.
Appeal 2011-009510
Application 11/557,001

3
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lüssi and Fima.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 11-13, 20, and 21
Appellant contends Lüssi does not suggest activating an alarm (Br. 6-
7). Appellant also contends Lüssi does not suggest activating any part of the
output unit, which the Examiner alleges discloses an alarm, in response to
detecting a temperature of water falling below a preselected temperature (Br.
7). Appellant further contends the set temperatures which Lüssi detects—
90°C (194°F) and 130°C (266°F)—are significantly above the temperature
below which objects immersed in water are not sanitized after one half
minute (Id.). Additionally, Appellant contends Lüssi teaches away from
providing an alarm when water temperature falls below a preselected
temperature, specifically, a temperature below which objects immersed in
water are not sanitized after one half minute (Br. 9-10). We disagree with
Appellant.
Appellant’s Specification broadly defines an alarm as including a
visual alarm (Spec. 7:1-2). Lüssi’s system includes an “LC display” which
indicates “malfunction, operational functions, readiness or non-readiness,
etc.” of the system (Lüssi, col. 7, ll. 21-26). We agree with the Examiner’s
broad but reasonable interpretation of “alarm” as encompassing a visual
display such as Lüssi’s LC display (Ans. 4, 16).
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that the indication of
“readiness or non-readiness” on Lüssi’s LC display is in response to
Appeal 2011-009510
Application 11/557,001

4
detection of a temperature (Ans. 4, 16). Specifically, Lüssi discloses the
following:
Let us assume that in switching on the coffee machine
the hot water tanks already contain water, which has to be
heated up. It can be seen from the flow chart in FIG. 3a that,
because the question of whether the coffee water temperature is
less than the set value can be answered affirmatively, the
heating element of the first hot water tank receives the
maximum possible distribution of power.

(Lüssi, col. 7, ll. 30-37). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that in the case where the coffee water is below a set temperature, which
triggers a distribution of power to the heating element for the coffee water as
quoted above, Lüssi’s display would indicate the “non-readiness”
operational condition for the coffee water (see Lüssi, col. 7, ll. 21-26).
Regarding Appellant’s argument that Lüssi’s set temperatures are
significantly above the recited “preselected temperature sufficient to sanitize
objects immersed in the water so that immersing objects in the water for at
least one half minute does not sanitize surfaces of the object” (Br. 7), we
note that the value of the preselected temperature is merely non-functional
descriptive material. That is, the claim 1 step of “activating an alarm in
response to sensing a temperature of water falling below a preselected
temperature” is not functionally dependent on the value of the preselected
temperature. In other words, the temperature of the water does not change
how the alarm is activated.
Based on the presence of non-functional descriptive material in claim
1, we do not give patentable weight to the value of the preselected
temperature. Lüssi discloses an alarm—i.e., a visual display indicating, for
example, “non-readiness”—in response to water temperature falling below a
Appeal 2011-009510
Application 11/557,001

5
preselected temperature, for instance, 90°C (194°F) (see Lüssi, col. 4, l. 63-
col. 5, l. 9; col. 7, ll. 21-26 and 30-37). Therefore, we find Lüssi discloses
“activating an alarm in response to sensing a temperature of water falling
below a preselected temperature,” as recited in claim 1.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Lüssi teaches away from providing an alarm when water temperature falls
below a preselected temperature (Br. 9-10), because as just discussed, we
find Lüssi discloses this feature.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-4 not specifically argued separately. Although claims 11-13,
20, and 21 are argued separately from claims 1-4, the arguments presented
are similar to those addressed here (see Br. 10-16). Accordingly, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 11-13, 20, and 21 for the reasons discussed
above.

Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15
Regarding claim 5, Appellant contends “Lussi [sic] teaches away from
providing a warning signal (such as described in Fima) in response to the
water temperature falling below a selected temperature” (Br. 18). Appellant
also contends “Fima teaches away from providing a warning signal in
response to the water temperature falling below a selected temperature.
Fima is only concerned with the problem of preventing a water temperature
from rising above a selected temperature.” (Br. 18). We disagree with
Appellant.
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Lüssi
teaches an alarm in response to detecting a water temperature falling below a
Appeal 2011-009510
Application 11/557,001

6
preselected temperature, and thus, Lüssi does not teach away from this
feature. Further, both Lüssi and Fima relate to providing an alarm in
response to detecting a water temperature, and thus, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have considered using an alarm disclosed in Fima in Lüssi’s
system. The fact that Fima’s alarm is in response to water rising above a
certain temperature does not teach away from using Fima’s alarm in Lüssi’s
system. Rather, Lüssi discloses indicating the “readiness or non-readiness”
of certain water (Lüssi, col. 7, ll. 21-26), and thus, suggests providing an
alarm when water falls below or rises above a preselected temperature.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 5, and claim 14 not specifically argued separately. Although claims 6
and 15 are argued separately from claims 5 and 14, the arguments presented
are similar to those addressed here (see Br. 19-21). We therefore also
sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 15 for the reasons discussed above.

Claims 8-10 and 17-19
Appellant’s contentions regarding claims 8-10 relate to the value of
the “preselected temperature” recited in claim 1 (see Br. 21-26). As
discussed above, the value of the preselected temperature is non-functional
descriptive material that we do not give patentable weight. We are therefore
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-10, and claims
17-19, not specifically argued separately.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-009510
Application 11/557,001

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-21 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

rwk