Ex Parte Stebbins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2018

14384527 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

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.
14/384,527 09/11/2014 Kevin Stebbins 60857US02 (U300387US) 7358
87059 7590 03/15/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
WANG, JACK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN STEBBINS
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/3 84,5271
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—12, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is UTC FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION (Br. 1).
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/384,527
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to an alarm system
which provides alerts from off-premise sensors (Abstract). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A security system comprising:
a security device operable to communicate with one or
more on premise sensors and one or more off premise sensors
and/or event generators, the device comprising:
a control module comprising:
one or more receiving modules operable to receive
one or more signals from one or more on-premise sensors
and one or more signals from one or more off-premise
sensors and/or event generators;
a processor coupled with a memory module having
stored therein computer-readable instructions operable to
cause the processor to analyze the one or more signals
from the one or more on premise sensors and the one or
more signals from the one or more off-premise sensors
and/or event generators to determine whether to cause an
audio; a visual or both an audio and visual alarm to be
initiated;
an external sensor/event processing module coupled
to the control module, the external sensor/event processing
module for processing and alerting users;
a user interface, coupled with the processor,
operable to receive user input and display information
indicative of the alarm; and
one or more event processing centers configured to
receive data updates from one or more event data stores
and send messages to the external sensor/event processing
module in a format used by the control module.
2
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/384,527
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hunter US 2007/0275690 A1 Nov. 29,2007
REJECTION
Claims 1—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hunter (Final Act. 2—4).
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1-12
Appellant contends the invention, as recited in claims 1—12, is not
anticipated by Hunter (Br. 3—7).2 The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner shown Hunter discloses “one or more
event processing centers configured to receive data updates from one or
more event data stores and send messages to the external sensor/event
processing module in a format used by the control module,” as recited in
claim 1?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner shown Hunter discloses “receiving
formatted messages from one or more event processing centers configured to
2 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief for the
positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action and Answer for the
positions of the Examiner.
3
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/384,527
receive data updates from one or more event processing centers,” as recited
in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Claims 1—6
Appellant contends Hunter does not disclose “one or more event
processing centers configured to receive data updates from one or more
event data stores and send messages to the external sensor/event processing
module in a format used by the control module,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 3—
5). Specifically, Appellant argues “Hunter refers to receiving and
disseminating emergency notifications, but makes no reference to an
external sensor/event processing module” {id. at 5). Appellant also argues
that Hunter does not disclose “the claimed interaction between the one or
more event data stores, the one or more event processing centers and the
external sensor/event processing module,” as recited by the claims {id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. The Examiner
finds (Ans. 3—4; Final Act. 2—3), and we agree, Hunter discloses an
Emergency Feedback and Notification (EFAN) system having “a plurality of
EFAN devices 110 provided at selected locations” (Hunter 175, Fig. 2).
The Examiner further finds (Final Act. 2—3), and we agree, each EFAN
device includes a “microprocessor 1108,” which receives “a digital
bitstream,” “monitors [the] bitstream for alerts,” and provides those alerts to
users (Hunter H 81, 115). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the
alerts received by a receiving EFAN are generated by host facilities using
sensor measurements collected from other transmitting EFANs (Ans. 5; see
Ans. 3—4). Specifically, transmitting EFANs “are equipped with at least one
4
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/384,527
sensor for detecting at least one environmental measurement” and “convey
this information via links 115 to a Host Facility 120” (Hunter 175). Using
that information, the host facilities “monitor data trends and assess
emergency situations” to transmit alert messages to receiving EFAN Devices
(Hunter 177; see Hunter 174, Fig. 2).
Appellant’s argument that Hunter “makes no reference to an external
sensor/event processing module” (Br. 5) is not persuasive. A reference can
anticipate a claimed invention even though it describes the claimed subject
matter using different terms (see In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (“These elements must be arranged as in the claim . . ., but this is not
an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”, i.e., identity of terminology is not required.)). In
Hunter, an EFAN’s microprocessor processes alerts (Hunter 181) received
from external sensors and events, e.g., from sensors connected to other
EFANs (Hunter 175) or from events received from the National Weather
Radio (Hunter 1 81). Accordingly, Hunter’s EFANs, which receive and
process alerts, disclose “an external sensor/event processing module,” as
recited by the claim, despite not being labeled as external sensor/event
processing modules.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Hunter does
not disclose the “claimed interaction between the one or more event data
stores [and] the one or more event processing centers” (Br. 5). The claims
recite “event processing centers configured to receive data updates from one
or more event data stores.” Hunter discloses transmitting EFANs include
“non-volatile storage 1106 (e.g., a hard disk) for accumulation and
temporary storage of sensor data” (Hunter | 80), i.e. “event data stores.”
The EFAN’s sensor data is transmitted from the EFAN’s event data store, to
5
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/384,527
host facilities (Hunter |75), i.e., “event processing centers.” Host facilities
are “central data compilation and processing station[s] programmed to
monitor data trends and assess emergency situations” using the sensor data
received from transmitting EFANs’ storage memory (Hunter 177).
Accordingly, we find Hunter’s host facilities disclose “event processing
centers configured to receive data updates from [the] one or more event data
stores,” as recited by the claim.
Further, Appellant’s argument that Hunter does not disclose the
“claimed interaction between . . . the one or more event processing centers
and the external sensor/event processing module” (Br. 5) is not persuasive.
The claims recite the “event processing centers . . . send messages to the
external sensor/event processing module in a format used by the control
module.” Hunter discloses host facilities, i.e., event processing centers, send
alert messages that are ultimately received and processed by the external
sensor/event processing modules of receiving EFANs. For example, a host
facility’s “message is sent in digital form to a satellite uplink facility 105 .. .
and [is] blanket broadcast by that broadcasting facility 109 to all EFAN
Devices 110” (Hunter 177; see Hunter 174, Fig. 2).
In addition, the alert messages sent by Hunter’s hosts are broadly “in a
format used” by Hunter’s EFAN microprocessor, i.e., “control module,”
because Hunter’s microprocessor processes those alert messages to alert
users (Hunter | 81). Hunter’s EFAN “microprocessor 1108 examines the
headers of each message or data packet” and “discards the packets that do
not conform to the . . . EFAN device” (Hunter | 81). Discarding messages
that do not conform implies that there are messages that do conform and,
therefore, are messages “in a format used by” the receiving EFAN’s
6
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/384,527
microprocessor. Thus, we find Hunter’s host facilities disclose “event
processing centers . .. send messages to the external sensor/event processing
module in a format used by the control module,” as recited by the claim.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Hunter discloses the invention as recited in claim 1 and claims 2—6, not
separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Hunter.
Issue 2: Claims 7—12
Appellant contends Hunter does not disclose “receiving formatted
messages from one or more event processing centers configured to receive
data updates from one or more event processing centers,” as recited in
claim 7 (Br. 6—7). Specifically, Appellant argues “the rejection of claims 1—
6 is flawed, and thus the rejection of claim 7 is also flawed” because the
Examiner relies on the rejection of claim 1 in rejecting claim 7 {id. at 7).
Further, Appellant argues “[i]t is not clear how Hunter discloses” the
disputed limitations (id. ).
As an initial matter, although claim 7 and claim 1 recite different
limitations, Appellant confusingly contends that the subject matter of claim
7 is the same subject matter of claim 1 {compare Br. 6 with Br. 3—4).
Specifically, Appellant asserts both claims include “an event processing
center 215 that receives updates from data stores 205/210” (Br. 3, 6 (citing
Spec. Fig. 2); see Br. 2—3 (citing Spec. 126)). Claim 7, however, does not
recite event processing centers receive updates from data stores', rather,
claim 7 recites “one or more event processing centers configured to receive
data updates from one or more event processing centers. ” Because
7
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/384,527
Appellant describes the invention differently than the claim recitation of
claim 7, Appellant is not arguing the recited claim limitation. Furthermore,
we do not readily find support in the Specification for data updates
transmitted between event processing centers, as recited by the claim and
thus, do not find clarity as to the claims’ meanings. It is also unclear
whether claim 7’s later recitation of “one or more event processing centers”
is meant to refer to the former recitation of “one or more event processing
centers,” or if the later recitation is meant to introduce new event processing
centers to the claim.
Although the uncertainty remains, in the interest of compact
prosecution, we determine Appellant’s arguments are otherwise
unpersuasive. Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7 because the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 (Br. 7), is not
persuasive because Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, as discussed supra.
Additionally, Appellant’s arguments that “[i]t is not clear how Hunter
discloses” receiving data updates from event processing centers (id.) is
without any elaboration or persuasive explanation detailing how the
Examiner erred. Nonetheless, we find Hunter discloses data updates
between event processing centers. Specifically, as discussed supra, we find
Hunter’s host facilities disclose event processing centers. Further, Hunter
discloses “[ejach host facility can communicate with regional or national
hosts” (Hunter 1133), where local host facilities 120 transmit data to
regional host facilities 130, which in turn transmit data to national host
facilities 140 (see Hunter Fig. 2,178). Thus, we determine Hunter discloses
“receiving formatted messages from one or more event processing centers
8
Appeal 2017-009154
Application 14/384,527
configured to receive data updates from one or more event processing
centers,” as recited in claim 7.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Hunter discloses the invention as recited in claim 7 and claims 8—12, not
separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 7—12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Hunter.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hunter 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9