Ex Parte Stanley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2014

11698303 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2014)

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.
11/698,303 01/26/2007 James G. Stanley 040675-1050 4380
22428 7590 02/14/2014
FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
SUITE 500
3000 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
EXAMINER
ALGAHAIM, HELAL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2014 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 JAMES G. STANLEY, GEORGE THEOS, PHIL MAGUIRE, and
DON MCDONALD
____________

Appeal 2012-002885
Application 11/698,303
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, FRANCES L.
IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 6-8, 10-12, and 50-52. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-002885
Application 11/698,303

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 6 is representative of the subject matter on appeal,
and recites:
6. An occupant classification system comprising:
a sensing element in a vehicle seat, the sensing element
comprises a sensing electrode;
a measurement circuit that is configured to measure a
property associated with the sensing electrode;
at least one wire that connects at least one additional
conductor to a chassis ground;
a circuit that is configured to determine if the at least one
additional conductor is grounded to the chassis ground; and
a controller that is configured to classify an occupant by
using measurements of the measurement circuit;
wherein the controller includes a mechanism that
provides an alternative grounding path to a circuit ground for
the at least one additional conductor when circuit determines
that the at least one additional conductor is not grounded to the
chassis ground.

REJECTION1
Claims 6-8, 10-12, and 50-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stanley (US 6,392,542 B1, iss. May 21, 2002) and Shieh
(US 2004/0196150 B1, pub. Oct. 7, 2004).

1 The Examiner’s Answer indicates that claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Shieh. Ans. 4. This, however, appears to be a
misstatement as the Examiner acknowledged that claim 1 was previously
cancelled. Final Rej. 2. As such, we do not review the rejection of
cancelled claim 1 in this appeal.
Appeal 2012-002885
Application 11/698,303

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 6 requires, among other features, a controller that
“includes a mechanism that provides an alternative grounding path to a
circuit ground for the at least one additional conductor when circuit
determines that the at least one additional conductor is not grounded to the
chassis ground.” App. Br., Claims App’x (emphasis added).
For independent claim 6, the Examiner found Stanley describes all the
recited features except for “a circuit that is configured to determine if the at
least one additional conductor is grounded to the chassis ground.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner determined that Shieh teaches this limitation in paragraphs
[0012], [0015], [0052], [0091], and [0110]. Id. at 6, 9. Specifically, the
Examiner found that the “[Shieh] [c]apacitive sensing passenger detection
system may ground unused electrodes to account for different grounding
states. The electrodes are allowed to float or grounded using the switch.”
Id. at 9. The Examiner further reasoned that it would have been obvious to
incorporate Shieh’s teaching with Stanley “to improve the accuracy of
detecting the characteristic of an [o]ccupant in a vehicle.” Id. at 6 (emphasis
omitted).
Appellants argue that the cited portions of Shieh do not disclose the
claimed controller and, instead, teach taking electrode measurements while a
particular electrode is grounded or not grounded. See App. Br. 8.
Appellants explain that Shieh describes “that ‘connecting a first electrode to
ground’ facilitates ‘measuring a first signal’ and then ‘disconnecting the first
electrode from ground’ facilitates ‘measuring a second signal’ so that a ‘state
of the passenger’ can be determined based on the ‘first and second signals.’”
Id. (citing Shieh, para. [0015]). Appellants further explain that
Appeal 2012-002885
Application 11/698,303

4
[p]aragraph [0052] of Shieh further clarifies the purpose
of connecting and disconnecting the ground for each conductor
is to measure the load current, “while the loading current of one
electrode is measured, the other electrodes are grounded.
Alternatively, one or more of the other electrodes are
electrically isolated (not connected to ground).” Accordingly,
although Shieh may disclose, teach, or suggest a system that
measures a property of an electrode by connecting and
disconnecting the grounds of electrodes, Shieh fails to disclose
a circuit that is configured to “determine if the at least one
conditional conductor is grounded to the chassis ground” and
further fails to disclose a controller that provides “an alternative
grounding path to a circuit ground for the at least one additional
conductor when circuit determines that the at least one
additional conductor is not grounded to the chassis ground.”
Id. at 8-9.
On the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not
established by technical reasoning or evidence that Shieh teaches a
controller with a mechanism that provides the alternative grounding path
when the circuit determines the recited conductor is not grounded to the
chassis ground. In particular, the cited Shieh passages describe electrodes
that can be grounded or floated (via switches) to allow for different electrode
measurements. See Shieh, paras. [0015], [0052], [0091], and [0110]. For
example, Shieh teaches
[a] first electrode is connected to ground while a signal is
measured at a second electrode. The switch or multiplexer 514
(FIG. 4) connects the electrode to ground. A loading or
receiving current is measured at the second electrode . . . ,
[(para. [0111])], [and] [t]he first electrode is then disconnected
from [the] ground, allowing the first electrode to float . . . . For
example, the switch or multiplexer . . . is opened . . . . A
loading or receiving [signal] is measured at the second
electrode while the first electrode is disconnected from ground
[(para. [0112])].
Appeal 2012-002885
Application 11/698,303

5
While we agree with the Examiner that Shieh discloses a switch that allows
electrodes to float or ground (see Ans. 9), we do not find that the Examiner
has set forth a sufficient factual basis for establishing how the switch and/or
the electrode teach “an alternative grounding path” provided “when circuit
determines that the at least one additional conductor is not grounded to the
chassis ground.” See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). As
Appellants point out, Shieh appears to teach the grounding and ungrounding
of electrodes for electrode measurements without determining if conductors
are grounded. See App. Br. 8-9. Thus, we do not see from the cited portions
of Shieh where the reference teaches the claimed controller. Additionally,
the Examiner does not rely on Stanley to cure the above-identified
deficiencies of Shieh.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting independent claim 6 and dependent claims 7, 8, 10-12, and 50-52
as unpatentable over Stanley and Shieh.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6-8, 10-12,
and 50-52.
REVERSED

hh