Ex Parte Monk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14618609 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/618,609 02/10/2015
107354 7590 09/26/2018
Edel Patents LLC
8550 United Plaza Blvd., Suite 702
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harold G. Monk
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.
020.04 6433
EXAMINER
HUTCHENS, CHRISTOPHER D.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
john@edelpatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAROLD G. MONK
Appeal2018-001763
Application 14/618,609
Technology Center 3600
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-001763
Application 14/618,609
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 14--20. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9-13 were
cancelled during prosecution. App. Br. 1, 18-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claims are directed generally to a species-specific animal
feeder. Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An animal feeder comprising:
a. a housing wherein the housing is resilient to a selected
species;
b. a feed compartment within the housing wherein the feed
compartment is resilient to the selected species;
c. a protected region within the housing;
d. a barrier between the protected region and the feed
compartment;
e. an access door located in the housing;
f. a species recognition device;
g. an access door actuator located in the protected region;
and
h. an electric shock deterrent;
i. wherein an external portion of the housing is electrically
conductive;
j. wherein the protected region is not accessible to the
selected species;
k. wherein the housing is a hog resilient housing;
1. wherein the access door is a hog resilient access door;
and
m. wherein the selected species is a mammalian species.
2
Appeal2018-001763
Application 14/618,609
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
De Jong
Jalbert et al.
us 4,513,687
US 2010/0132629 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Apr. 30, 1985
June 3, 2010
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 14--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(b)
as being indefinite. Ans. 2.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14--17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jalbert. Ans. 3.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Jalbert and De Jong. Id.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 8 as indefinite
because "it is unclear what structural feature makes a housing/ door to be
hog/bear resistant." Final Act. 2. Appellant points out, however, that the
Specification makes clear what makes the device not only resilient, but also
provides a test to determine whether the device is, in fact, resilient. See, e.g.,
App. Br. 8, 10 (citing Spec. ,r,r 11-13, 28, and 29). We conclude that this
disclosure sufficiently describes to one skilled in the art what is meant by the
term "resilient" as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
indefiniteness rejection.
3
Appeal2018-001763
Application 14/618,609
Obviousness
Regarding the Examiner's reliance on Jalbert, Appellant correctly
points out that "Jalbert has no component or combination of components that
could be characterized as a species recognition device." App. Br. 14.
Jalbert teaches only the capability to recognize an RFID tag that may be
affixed to a pet's collar, or the like, so as only to allow feeding by the
specific pet wearing the RFID tag. Jalbert ,r,r 14, 15. These tags may be
affixed to any animal and all the device does is allow feeding by a properly
tagged animal. There is no recognition of the species, only recognition of
the RFID tag.
While it may be true that a household may have a cat and a dog, and
so various feeders happen to differentiate between a dog and a cat, the feeder
itself is not capable of detecting all cats and only allowing feeding by only
cats or only dogs while excluding the other species. The present
Specification makes clear that the type of species recognition that is intended
is accomplished by way of, for example, microphones or cameras that record
the approaching species, compare the sounds or images to a database of
known species, and then determine whether that species is the target species
or a tampering species. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 14. In other words, the claimed
device is capable of allowing feeding to any animal of the selected species,
regardless of whether that animal has an RFID tag or not. Furthermore, the
animals intended for use with the claimed feeders are wild animals for which
it would not be practical to affix RFID tags to the various animals intended
to use or not use the feeders. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that
Jalbert fails to teach the claimed species recognition device. De Jong does
4
Appeal2018-001763
Application 14/618,609
not cure this deficiency. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 14--20.
REVERSED
5