Ex Parte Samon i Castella et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201512668993 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/668,993 06/04/2010 Jordi Samon i Castella 1433-37 1400 24106 7590 05/22/2015 EGBERT LAW OFFICES 1314 Texas Avenue, 21st Floor HOUSTON, TX 77002 EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2126 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2015 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 JORDI SAMON I CASTELLA and MANEL CLAUS I MARCH ____________ Appeal 2013-004208 Application 12/668,993 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claim 5. Claims 1–4 have been canceled. (App. Br. 8.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2013-004208 Application 12/668,993 2 CLAIM Claim 5, the only pending claim, is reproduced below: 5. A watering system comprising: a plurality of watering devices; a radio-frequency communications module cooperative with said plurality of water devices, said radio-frequency communications module suitable for being switched or programmed from a location remote from said plurality of watering devices; a server computer having a connection to a global access communications network; a telephone cooperative with said server computer so as to transmit signals through a remote service device to said server computer; a plurality of communication hubs each having a telephone access device, each of said plurality of communication hubs having a microchip and a storage memory for retaining watering programs, each of said plurality of communication hubs having a radio frequency equipment for communicating with said plurality of water devices, each of said plurality of communication hubs having an electric power source; an outdoor sensor connected the communication hub; and a radio-frequency signal antenna cooperative with said plurality of communication hubs and with said plurality of watering devices, at least one of said plurality of watering devices having at least one connection to an environmental sensor, said environmental sensor sensing environmental conditions or performance conditions. Appeal 2013-004208 Application 12/668,993 3 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sieminski,1 Cardinal,2 and Amit.3 (Final Act. 3–8.) ISSUE The issue raised by Appellants’ arguments is whether the Examiner improperly combined the references in rejecting claim 5. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 8–18). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend “[t]he prior art combination of the Sieminski publication, Cardinal publication and Amit publication does show the separate elements of the present invention. However, the combination of the present invention is not suggested by this prior art combination.” (App. Br. 14–15.) Specifically, Appellants argue Cardinal “cannot provide a management solution to those watering spots which are used in battery- powered programmers,” and Amit “would not be able to use battery- 1 Sieminski, US 2003/0093159 A1; published May 15, 2003. 2 Cardinal et al., US 2004/0181315 A1; published Sept. 16, 2004. 3 Amit, WO 01/01752 A2; published Jan. 11, 2001. Appeal 2013-004208 Application 12/668,993 4 powered equipment with reasonable autonomy . . .” (App. Br. 15–16.) We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 10) that these arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 5, which does not require battery- powered equipment. We also find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because they address the references individually rather than the combination articulated by the Examiner. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). Appellants also argue none of the references applied by the Examiner “show the use of multiple hubs for the purpose of simplifying communications.” (App. Br. 17; see also id. at 16.) The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sieminski teaches or suggests multiple irrigation controllers (i.e., communications hubs) each communicating with multiple watering stations (i.e., watering devices). (Final Act. 3–4 (citing Sieminski Fig. 1, items 110 and 114); Ans. 16.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Sieminski teaches or suggests use of multiple hubs, as recited in claim 5. We also find the intended use of “simplifying communications” is not recited in claim 5, and thus Appellants’ argument regarding such a use is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Appellants further argue the use of multiple hubs as recited in claim 5 achieves unexpected results. (App. Br. 13–14 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 16, 17, 19).) Appellants cite discussion in the Specification of the benefits of using a hub approach to watering (id.), but have not persuasively explained why those benefits would have been unexpected to one of ordinary skill. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5. Appeal 2013-004208 Application 12/668,993 5 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 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). AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation