Ex Parte Thompson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12580549 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/580,549 10/16/2009
70409 7590 02/29/2016
TRIMBLE C/O WAGNER BLECHER
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carl THOMPSON
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.
TRMB-2450 1617
EXAMINER
ALONZO MILLER, RHADAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
patents@wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL THOMPSON
Appeal2014-001060
Application 12/580,549
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant2 appeals the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kirk et al.3 in view of Cherry.4
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
1 In our opinion below, we refer to the Specification filed October 16, 2009
(Spec.), Final Office Action filed November 19, 2012 (Final), the Appeal
Brief filed March 22, 2013 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer filed
August 28, 2013 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed October 24, 2013 (Reply
Br.).
2 Appellant identifies the real party of interest as Trimble Navigation
Limited. Appeal Br. 1.
3 US 5,916,300 issued June 29, 1999 (hereinafter "Kirk").
4 US 2008/0285385 Al published Nov. 20, 2008.
Appeal2014-001060
Application 12/580,549
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to systems and methods for monitoring and
detecting an event, such as a seismic event like an earthquake. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A system for monitoring and detecting an event, said
system comprising:
a position determining unit configured to receive a
position determining signal;
a seismic event detector configured to detect a seismic
event and generate a seismic event signal;
a storage unit configured for storing position information
corresponding to said position determining signal, said storage
of said position information occurs in a first manner; and
a storage unit manager configured to alter said first
manner of said storing said position information upon a receipt
of said seismic event signal.
Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 21.
According to the Specification, the structure corresponding to the
position determining unit is, for instance, a Global Navigation Satellite
System (GNSS), an example of which is the NAVSTAR Global Positioning
System (GPS). Spec. i-f 13.
The seismic event detector is, for instance, an accelerometer,
seismograph, etc. Spec. i-f 48.
The structure corresponding to the storage unit may be types of
computer readable memory devices or storage media. Spec. i-f 35. The
storage unit may include a ring buffer. Spec. i-f 45. The first manner of data
storage recited in the claim is a form of data storage involving overwriting
2
Appeal2014-001060
Application 12/580,549
old data with new data when the ring buffer reaches full capacity. Spec. i-f
45.
The Specification does not identify a structure corresponding to the
storage unit manager. According to the Specification, the storage unit
manager alters the manner in which data is stored in the storage unit when
triggered by a seismic event signal. Spec. i-fi-146-47. For example, the
seismic event signal alters the method of logging the data from a first
manner in which the data is logged at a sample rate of one position fix per
second in the ring buffer to a second method in which the data is logged and
stored at a rate of twenty position fixes per second. Spec. i-f 46. We presume
that the structure corresponding to the storage unit manager is computer
programming or an equivalent computer structure.
In rejecting claims 1-36 as obvious over Kirk in view of Cherry, the
Examiner finds that Kirk teaches a system with a position determining unit
(GPS 110), a storage unit (buffer 130 and storage 145), and storage unit
manager (data logging device 120) meeting the requirements of the claims.
See, e.g., Final 3. The Examiner acknowledges that although Kirk teaches
including an external sensor to detect an event, Kirk does not specifically
teach a seismic event detector as the external sensor. Final 3--4. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to include a seismic event
detector in the system of Kirk to determine the exact location of a seismic
event based on GPS signals as taught by Cherry. Final 4.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's specific findings as to what
the references teach. Instead, Appellant contends that Cherry teaches away
from the storage unit recited in claim 1 because Cherry stores seismic
information from seismic sensors, which Appellant contends is different
from "storing position information corresponding to said position
3
Appeal2014-001060
Application 12/580,549
determining signal" as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further
contends that changing the data of the seismic sensors of Cherry to the
position information of the position determining unit, as claimed, would
change the principle of operation of Cherry and render it unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 8-9.
OPINION
For the reasons the Examiner expresses in the Answer, we do not find
the Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error. Ans. 4--9. We add
the following for emphasis.
Kirk teaches an event detection and processing system that includes a
position determining unit (GPS 110) and that stores data in the same manner
as required by Appellant's claims, i.e., it stores GPS data in a buffer. Kirk,
col. 3, 1. 53---col. 4, 1. 18. Because Kirk stores GPS data, Kirk is "storing
position information corresponding to said position determining signal" as
recited in claim 1.
In Kirk's system, an external sensor can supply a trigger that changes
the method of position information storage. Kirk, 3, 11. 11-14. Kirk
discloses a list of possible triggering events, and states that many types of
sensors and other devices may be used for a wide variety of applications, but
does not specifically mention seismic sensors for sensing seismic events.
Kirk, col. 6, 11. 9-24. However, Cherry provides evidence that systems
using seismic sensors including GPS transceivers where known for detecting
seismic events. Cherry i-fi-f 12, 37. The GPS transponders are used to
retrieve information about the position of the sensors. Cherry i145.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding of a
suggestion, based upon the evidence in Cherry that seismic sensors using
4
Appeal2014-001060
Application 12/580,549
GPS transponders to determine position were known in the art, to use a
seismic sensor as an external sensor in the system of Kirk to detect seismic
events such as earthquakes in combination with the data logging technique
of Kirk.
Cherry does not teach away from the claimed storage unit configured
for storing position information. Cherry uses a sensor including a GPS
transponder that collects position information. Appellant contends that
storing seismic information from seismic sensors "is very different than and
appears to teach away from 'storing position information corresponding to
said position determining signal.'" Appeal Br. 7. But it is not understood
why a teaching of saving seismic data would teach away from saving
position information from the GPS transponder. Saving the position
information would be desirable to correlate the seismic data with the
location of the sensor.
Nor is it understood why using the seismic sensor with the data
storing system of Kirk would render the resulting system unsatisfactory for
its intend purpose of detecting seismic waves. Appeal Br. 8-9. The
combination suggests collecting both seismic wave data and position
location information using Cherry's sensor given that the sensor includes a
GPS transponder.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that claim 1 requires the use of
location sensors to alter storage of data. Reply Br. 2. But this is not the
case. Claim 1 requires "a storage unit manager configured to alter said first
manner of said storing said position information upon a receipt of said
seismic event signal." It is the seismic event signal that alters the storage
mode, not a location sensor. It is position information that is being stored.
In the seismic monitoring and detection system suggested by the
5
Appeal2014-001060
Application 12/580,549
combination of Kirk and Cherry, the seismic event signal would also alter
the storage mode. The position information from the GPS transponder
within the seismic sensor would be the information being altered. This
meets the requirements of claim 1.
Appellant does not convince us of a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1.
Appellant relies upon the same arguments addressed above in arguing
against the rejection of the other independent claims. For the reasons
provided by the Examiner, we do not find those arguments persuasive of
reversible error.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED
6