Ex Parte Shilling et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 201713664723 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017) 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. 13/664,723 10/31/2012 David Christopher SHILLING 257842-1 3724 52082 7590 11/24/2017 General Electric Company GE Global Patent Operation 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/24/2017 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): gpo.mail@ge.com marie.gerrie@ge.com lori.E.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID CHRISTOPHER SHILLING and DEEDER MOHAMMED AURONGZEB Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and SHARON FENICK, 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 22—33 and 35—37. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 22—24, 27, 30, 32, 33, and 35—37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Steiner (US 2010/0052894 Al; Mar. 4, 2010) and Fichtner (US 4,150,415; Apr. 17, 1979). Final Act. 2—3. Claims 28, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Steiner, Fichtner, Zaretsky (US 5,786,644; Jul. 28, 1998), and Merwin (US 5,909,365; June 1, 1999). Final Act. 4. Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Steiner, Fichtner, and Goyal (US 2012/0248990 Al; Oct. 4, 2012). Final Act. 5. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “long range occupancy sensors.” Spec. 11. Claims 22, 32, and 37 are illustrative and reproduced below: 22. An active sensor system for monitoring a space, the active sensor system comprising: a transmitter portion for RF energy; and a receiver portion for RF energy, wherein the receiver portion is located remotely from the transmitter portion; wherein the transmitter portion comprises a relatively high power transmitter and the receiver portion comprises a relatively low power receiver. 32. A method of monitoring a space using an active sensor system, the active sensor system comprising a transmitter remotely located from a receiver, the method comprising: transmitting a signal from the transmitter; generating an estimate of the transmitted signal in the receiver; detecting a reflected version of the transmitted signal in the receiver; comparing the estimate of transmitted signal to the detected reflected version of the transmitted signal; and 2 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 determining a condition of the monitored spaced based on the comparison. 37. An active sensor system for monitoring a space, the active sensor system comprising: a transmitter portion for ultrasonic energy; and a receiver portion for ultrasonic energy, wherein the receiver portion is located remotely from the transmitter portion; wherein the transmitter portion comprises a relatively high power transmitter and the receiver portion comprises a relatively low power receiver. ANALYSIS The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 22-24,27,30,32,33, and 35-37 over Steiner and Fichtner Claims 22—24, 27, 30, and 37 The Examiner finds Steiner and Fichtner teach all limitations of claim 22. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner reasons: It would have been obvious to use [an] occupancy sensor device with [a] remote transmitter and receiver as suggested by Fichtner in order to allow coverage of a whole room. Use of [a] high power transmitter and [a] low power receiver would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the power emitted in any communication system is always many orders of magnitude higher than the power received. Final Act. 2—3. Appellants present the following principal arguments: i. “[N]one of the enabling embodiments of Steiner or Fichtner teach the use of [radio frequency (RF)] energy.” Br. 5. 3 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 ii. “Steiner does not disclose the key feature of, ‘... wherein the receiver portion is located remotely from the transmitter portion ... Br. 6. iii. Fichtner does not monitor a space [or] have anything whatsoever to do with an active sensor system. It is respectfully submitted that the word ‘sensor’ doesn’t appear in Fichtner. Clearly, the references themselves do not lead one to this hypothetical combination of references’ teaching; it must have been impermissible hindsight, since there is no teaching or suggestion or motivation to combine these references. Br. 6; see also Br. 7—8. iv. “It is not a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims to construe that the words ‘high power transmitter’ mean[] the same thing as ‘high power transmitted beam of energy’ or some such interpretation.” Br. 7. 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). We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Regarding Appellants’ argument (i), we find Steiner discloses transmitting and receiving RF energy. See Steiner | 51 (emphasis added) (“Alternatively, the internal detector could comprise an ultrasonic detector, a microwave detector, or any combination of PIR detectors, ultrasonic detectors, and microwave detectors.”); see also Final Act. 2 (citing Steiner | 51) and Ans. 4 (citing Steiner | 51). Regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), we find Fichtner teaches a receiver portion located remotely from a transmitter portion. See Fichtner 4 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 col. 6,11. 59—67 (transmitter 10 is separate and located remotely from receiver 12); see also Final Act. 2 (citing Fichtner col. 6,11. 59—67) and Ans. 4 (citing Fichtner col. 6,11. 59—67). Regarding Appellants’ argument (iii), [w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson ’s-Black Rock[, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In particular, the Examiner’s reasoning is not based on impermissible hindsight because Fichtner discloses a receiver portion located remotely from a transmitter portion and Fichtner’s teachings are applicable to occupancy detection systems. See Fichtner col. 6,11. 59-67, Abstract (accommodate occupancy detection signals); see also Steiner 151 (“Alternatively, the internal detector could comprise an ultrasonic detector, a microwave detector, or any combination of PIR detectors, ultrasonic detectors, and microwave detectors.”). Accordingly, applying Fichtner’s teachings to Steiner such that a receiver portion is located remotely from a transmitter portion would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. 5 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 Regarding Appellants’ argument (iv), Appellants’ Specification discloses “the transmitter portion 110 generally draws power from the hot and neutral AC wire connections. The receiver portion 120 generally requires low power and can operate satisfactorily off of the ground leakage power or current supplied from the AC hot lead.” Spec. 123. Appellants’ Specification further discloses “[b]y providing a greater power source to the transmitter portion 110, the transmitter portion 110 will be able to transmit a higher energy signal, and the occupancy sensor system 100 can cover a wider area.'” Spec. 129 (emphasis added). We conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of “high power transmitter” and “low power receiver” as broadly claimed includes a transmitter operative to transmit a higher power signal relative to the signal power received at the receiver. See Final Act. 2—3. In addition, the rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious may be that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). There exists only a finite number of possible arrangements for the power of the transmitter relative to the power of the receiver: a high power transmitter and a low power receiver, a low power transmitter and a high power receiver, or a transmitter and receiver having equal power. We, therefore, conclude that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have designed a transmitter and receiver meeting 6 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 the recited claim limitations. Such a design would have been merely a product of ordinary skill and common sense. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try a high power transmitter and a low power receiver from the finite set of identified arrangements and because the claimed arrangement produces a predictable solution that is within the grasp of one of ordinary skill. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. Regarding claim 23, claim 23 additionally recites “wherein the transmitter portion is configured to transmit information to the receiver portion wirelessly by encoding data onto a signal transmitted from the transmitter portion.” The Examiner finds Fichtner teaches this claimed subject matter. Final Act. 3 (citing Fichtner col. 2,11. 1—17); see also Ans. 6. Appellants argue “[t]he Fichtner reference has nothing whatsoever to do with sensing or being an active sensor or a passive sensor or an occupancy sensor. Therefore, its communication from a keyhole to a power outlet is not a teaching or a suggestion of the instantly claimed subject matter.” Br. 10. Fichtner (col. 2,11. 3—8) discloses “[t]he receivers in the room then detect the sound signal generated by the speaker. Each receiver amplifies this signal and feeds it to tone decoder means which determines whether or not the proper frequency tones have been received.” Thus, Fichtner teaches encoding data onto a signal as recited in claim 23, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Steiner and Fichtner for reasons discussed above. See Final Act. 2—3. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites “wherein the RF energy comprises microwave energy.” The Examiner finds “Steiner teaches 7 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 desirability of using microwave signals in an occupancy detection system.” Final Act. 3 (citing Steiner 151); see also Ans. 6. Appellants argue “the Steiner reference does not teach any kind of RF energy, much less microwave energy, and none of the embodiments of Fichtner teach any kind of RF energy, much less microwave energy.” Br. 10. The cited portion of Steiner (151) discloses “Alternatively, the internal detector could comprise an ultrasonic detector, a microwave detector, or any combination of PIR detectors, ultrasonic detectors, and microwave detectors.” Thus, Steiner teaches microwave energy as recited in claim 27. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 30, and 37, which are not separately argued with particularity. Claims 32, 33, 35, and 36 The Examiner finds Steiner and Fichtner teach all limitations of claim 32. Final Act. 3. Appellants present the same principal arguments as presented for claim 22. See Br. 8—9. These arguments do not show any Examiner error for reasons discussed above. In addition, Appellants present the following argument: Furthermore, neither reference, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests determining a condition of a monitored space[] based on the comparison of an estimate of transmitted signal to a detected reflected version of the transmitted signal. Steiner has no disclosure relate[d] to these features. Fichtner’s ultrasonic transmitter and receiver are not capable of monitoring a space or determining a condition of a monitored space. Br. 9. This argument also does not show any Examiner error. 8 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 The Examiner finds: Fichtner teaches desirability of use of an ultrasonic detector system that uses transmitter 10 remotely from receiver 12 (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 59-68). Fichtner teaches that received signal from transmitter has a tone compared in receiver via tone decoder, such would have been equivalent to a frequency comparator. Final Act. 2 Thus, when Fichtner’s teachings are applied to Steiner, the receiver is located remotely from the transmitter (Fichtner), and the condition of the monitored space (Steiner) is determined based on the comparison at the receiver (Fichtner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Steiner and Fichtner for reasons discussed above. See Final Act. 2—3. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32. Claim 33 recites “wherein the method additionally comprises encoding digital information onto the signal from the transmitter.” The Examiner finds Fichtner teaches this claimed subject matter. Final Act. 3 (citing Fichtner col. 2,11. 1—17). Appellants argue This [disclosure in Fichtner] is not encoding digital information onto the signal from the transmitter in an active sensor system for monitoring a space. The Fichtner reference has nothing whatsoever to do with sensing or being an active sensor or a passive sensor or an occupancy sensor. Therefore, its communication from a keyhole to a power outlet is not a teaching or a suggestion of the instantly claimed subject matter. Br. 10. Fichtner (col. 2,11. 3—8) discloses “[t]he receivers in the room then detect the sound signal generated by the speaker. Each receiver amplifies this signal and feeds it to tone decoder means which determines whether or not the proper frequency tones have been received.” Thus, Fichtner suggests encoding digital information onto the signal as recited in claim 33, and it 9 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Steiner and Fichtner for reasons discussed above. See Final Act. 2—3. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33. Claim 36 recites “wherein the transmitter comprises a relatively high power transmitter and the receiver comprises a relatively low power receiver.” The Examiner finds “Claim 36 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 22.” Final Act. 3. Appellants argue “It is not a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims to construe that the words ‘high power transmitter’ mean[] the same thing as ‘high power transmitted beam of energy’ or some such interpretation.” Br. 11. This argument does not show any Examiner error for reasons discussed above. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35, which is not separately argued with particularity. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 28,29, and 31 over Steiner, Fichtner, Zaretsky, and Merwin Appellants argue “Zaretsky and Merwin fail to provide the features of claim 22 missing from the combination of Steiner and Fichtner.” Br. 11. For reasons explained above in connection with claim 22, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 29, and 31. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 25 and 26 over Steiner, Fichtner, and Goyal Appellants argue “Goyal fails to disclose or suggest the features of claim 22 missing from the combination of Steiner and Fichtner.” Br. 12. 10 Appeal 2017-007781 Application 13/664,723 For reasons explained above in connection with claim 22, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 26. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22—33 and 35—37 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation