Ex Parte Palashewski et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2019

14675355 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/675,355 03/31/2015
26191 7590 05/30/2019
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wade Daniel Palashewski
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.
39870-0082001 1087
EXAMINER
AZAD, MD ABUL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2119
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2019 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte WADE DANIEL PALASHEWSKI, ROBERT ERKO,
ROBERT NUNN, and GORDAN REDZIC
Appeal2017-008567
Application 14/675,355
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and KARA L.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-22, and 26-29. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard the appeal on April 17, 2019.
Claims 1-6, 14-16, 20, 21, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Petrovski et al. (US 2011/0115635 Al; May 19, 2011)
and Dothie et al. (US 2011/0015495 Al; Jan. 20, 2011). Final Act. 4-23.
Claims 7, 8, 10-13, 17-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Petrovski, Dothie, and Oakhill (US 2011/0224510 A 1;
Sept. 15, 2011). Final Act. 23-34.
We reverse.
Appeal2017-008567
Application 14/675,355
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "bed systems including a data
processing device." Spec. 1:2-3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention, and
reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A system comprising:
a mattress;
a sensor configured to:
sense a feature of the mattress; and
transmit readings to a data processing device; and
the data processing device comprising a processor and
configured to:
receive the readings from the sensor;
determine if the readings i) indicate a user
presence on the mattress and ii) indicate the user intends to
sleep by comparing the user presence on the mattress with time
windows of expected user going to bed events in a model of the
user's sleep; and
responsive to determining that the readings i)
indicate user presence on the mattress and ii) indicate the user
intends to sleep, transmit a command to a peripheral controller
to modify the state of a peripheral device.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal2017-008567
Application 14/675,355
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-6, 14-16, 20, 21, AND 26-29
OVER PETROVSKI AND DOTHIE
Contentions
The Examiner finds Petrovski and Dothie teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 4-7; see also Ans. 37-41. The Examiner finds Petrovski
teaches all limitations of claim 1, except for the recited "indicate the user
intends to sleep" and "transmit a command to a peripheral controller to
modify the state of a peripheral device." See Final Act. 4-6. The Examiner
finds Dothie teaches these limitations. See Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner
reasons it would have been obvious to modify Petrovski in order to
"improv[e] the quality of consumers' sleep." Final Act. 7 (citing Dothie
~ 3).
In particular, the Examiner cites to Petrovski paragraph 99 for
teaching "indicate a user presence on the mattress" as recited in claim 1. See
Final Act. 5. The Examiner cites to Dothie paragraphs 65, 99 for teaching
"indicate the user intends to sleep" as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner cites to Petrovski paragraph 95 for teaching "by comparing
the user presence on the mattress with time windows of expected user going
to bed events in a model of the user's sleep" as recited in claim 1. See Final
Act. 5-6.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
"The claim is directed to a data processing device that checks to see if
an event ('user presence on the mattress') happens at expected time windows
('time windows of expected user going to bed events')." App. Br. 7.
"Instead of describing time windows, Petrovski describes only creating a
3
Appeal2017-008567
Application 14/675,355
schedule based on 'the time,' to be operated 'according to a predetermined
schedule or protocol."' App. Br. 7 ( citing Petrovski ,i 95); see also App.
Br. 8 ("Petrovski does not compare user presence with time at all, let alone
comparing user presence with time windows. Instead, Petrovski uses a
'predetermined schedule,' and operates according to that predetermined
schedule.").
Regarding Dothie, Appellants further argue the following:
[U]nder the Examiner's proposed combination of Petrovski and
Dothie, intent to sleep is determined according to "parameters
related to movement of the user and/or electrical signals
indicative of brain activity of the user" ([ Ans. 6-7] ( emphasis
added) )-not "by comparing the user presence on the mattress
with time windows" as claimed.
Reply Br. 3 ( citing Ans. 6-7 ( citing Dothie ,i,i 65, 95)).
Our Review
Petrovski discloses "[a] climate-conditioned bed." Petrovski,
Abstract. Petrovski further discloses "one or more occupant sensors ( e.g.,
pressure sensors) to accurately detect the presence of an occupant positioned
thereon." Petrovski ,i 99. Thus, Petrovski teaches a climate control system
that responds to input from an occupant sensor, and the occupant sensor
indicates a user presence on the mattress.
Petrovski further discloses "the various components of a climate
controlled bed can be operated according to a predetermined schedule or
protocol." Petrovski ,i 95. Thus, Petrovski teaches a climate control system
that operates according to a predetermined schedule.
Petrovski' s predetermined schedule does describe a time window of
expected user going to bed events. However, claim 1 recites "comparing the
user presence on the mattress with time windows of expected user going to
4
Appeal2017-008567
Application 14/675,355
bed events in a model of the user's sleep." We agree with Appellants that
Petrovski's predetermined schedule does not describe a comparison with the
user presence or occupant sensor output. See App. Br. 7-8. The
predetermined schedule in Petrovski described at paragraph 95 determines
when the components of the climate-controlled bed are operated, and we do
not see a comparison of the user presence on the mattress when operating
according to the predetermined schedule. See Petrovski ,-J 95. On the other
hand, we recognize that Petrovski does describe changing the heating or
cooling effect following a time period after the occupant sensor detects the
occupant. See Petrovski ,-J 99. However, this time period is not a window of
expected user going to bed events in a model of the user's sleep, and we still
do not see a comparison of the user presence on the mattress as determined
by the occupant sensor with the predetermined schedule. See Petrovski ,-J 99.
The Examiner's reliance on Dothie does not cure this deficiency.
Dothie discloses "monitoring, using at least one sensor, one or more
objective parameters relevant to sleep quality of the user when in bed."
Dothie ,-J 65; see also Dothie ,-J 95. Thus, we agree with Appellants that
Dothie also does not describe the claimed comparison. See Reply Br. 3.
For reasons explained above, Petrovski and Dothie do not teach the
key disputed limitations.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or
of claims 2-6 and 26, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 14 recites the same key disputed limitations
discussed above with respect to claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 14, or of claims 15, 16, and 29, which depend
from claim 14.
5
Appeal2017-008567
Application 14/675,355
Independent claim 20 recites the same key disputed limitations
discussed above with respect to claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 20, or of claim 21, which depends from claim
20.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7, 8, 10-13, 17-19, AND 22 OVER
PETROVSKI, DOTHIE, AND OAKHILL
The Examiner does not find Oakhill cures the deficiencies of
Petrovski and Dothie discussed above. See Final Act. 23-34, Ans. 36-41.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8,
10-13, 17-19, and 22.
DECISON
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-22, and 26-29 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 ).
REVERSED
6