Ex Parte TRUMPHY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2019

14965524 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/965,524 12/10/2015 Jonas Patrik TRUMPHY
98783 7590 05/30/2019
Perkins Coie LLP - DEN General
P.O. Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247
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.
119134-8002.USOO 6090
EXAMINER
KING, CURTIS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2019 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONAS PATRIK TRUMPHY
Appeal2018-008322
Application 14/965,524
Technology Center 2600
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1---6 and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Jonas Patrik Trumphy.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-008322
Application 14/965,524
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention "an alarm system for
monitoring of smoke and gas and moisture in a monitored area." Spec., p. 1,
11. 4--5.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. An alarm system compnsmg a cellular
communication device, such as a smartphone/unit, and at least
two detection arrangements, each detection arrangement, of the
at least two detection arrangements, comprising:
a housing;
a detector device arranged in said housing, said detector
device comprising a smoke detector and a gas detector and a
moisture detector;
a positioning device arranged in said housing;
a control unit arranged in said housing; and
a wireless communication device arranged in said
housing, wherein said wireless communication device comprises
a transceiver for a cellular or mobile network;
wherein said detector device being configured to provide
said control unit with an indication of when smoke or gas or
moisture has been detected, said positioning device being
configured to provide said control unit with a geographical
position of said detection arrangement, and said control unit
being configured to transmit an alarm message wirelessly
through said wireless communication device to said cellular
communication device after receiving the indication from said
detector device when smoke or gas or moisture has been detected
thereof, wherein said alarm message comprises said
geographical position and information of what has been detected;
wherein each detection arrangement is arranged to monitor
an area different from areas monitored by other detection
arrangements;
wherein each control unit is configured to wirelessly
receive an indication of detected smoke, gas or moisture from
another detection arrangement monitoring a different area, and
to sound an alarm in its monitored area after receiving the
2
Appeal2018-008322
Application 14/965,524
indication of detected smoke, gas or moisture from said another
detection arrangement monitoring a different area; and
said cellular communication device is configured to
receive said alarm message transmitted from one detection
arrangement of said at least two detection arrangements and to
notify a user of said cellular communication device of said alarm
message.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kates (US 2007 /0139183 Al, pub. Jun. 21, 2007), Petite
(US 2004/0183687 Al; pub. Sept. 23, 2004), Watts (US 2014/0062693 Al;
pub. Mar. 6, 2014), and Simoncic (US 2015/0077242 Al, pub. Mar. 19,
2015). Final Act. 2-9.
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that claims 1---6 and 10 are unpatentable over Kates, Petite,
Watts, and Simoncic.
Appellant contends that Kates fails to teach or suggest a detection
arrangement including a control unit, within the housing, that is configured
to transmit an alarm message wirelessly to the cellular communication
device, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 5---6. According to Appellant,
Kates' s sensors communicate with a computer system, which evaluates
whether a message should be sent to the cellular communication device.
App. Br. 6 (citing (Kates ,r,r 44 and 47). As such, Appellant asserts that
because Kates "interposes a separate computer system to make decisions on
whether an alarm condition exists," "Kates does not disclose that each
3
Appeal2018-008322
Application 14/965,524
detection arrangement separately communicates to a cellular communication
device." App. Br. 7.
We find this argument unpersuasive. Namely, Appellant's argument
fails to address the Examiner's combination of Kates with Watts to teach the
recited cellular communication. See, e.g., Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4. As the
Examiner explains,
In this case, Watts was use [ d] to modify Kate's [sic] sensor
with a cellular communication device. By modifying Kate's [sic]
sensors with cellular communication capability, [this] allow[ s]
the sensors of Kate [sic] to communicate directly with the remote
mobile devices of a user via a cellular communication link
without the needed of relaying the information through Kate's
[sic] base station.
Ans. 3. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, we note that Kates also
teaches that the sensor units can alternatively communicate directly with the
portable monitoring unit. See Kates ,r 65 ("Optionally, the sensor units and
repeater units can communicate directly with the PMU 1. "). As such, we are
not persuaded that Kates and Watts combined fail to teach or suggest this
disputed limitation.
Appellant contends that a skilled artisan would not combine Kates
with Watts to teach the detection arrangement including the recited cellular
communication limitation. In particular, Appellant maintains that Kates
already teaches cellular communication and that the proposed combination
"would expressly defeat the purpose of allowing a computer 113 to evaluate
the data." App. Br. 7.
4
Appeal2018-008322
Application 14/965,524
We disagree. As the Examiner finds, Watts discloses that it was
known to include a wireless communication device with a transceiver within
an alarm sensor, i.e., a detector device, and for the alarm sensor to "transmit
an alarm message to a mobile communication device over the
cellular/mobile network." Ans. 5 (citing Watts, Fig. 2 and ,r 48). The
Examiner also explains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art modify Kates' s sensor unit to include Watt's wireless
transceiver with wireless communication capability "to allow the detection
devices to be independent of any intermediary equipment, thereby reducing
complexity and expenses associated with installation, service, and
maintenance, as taught by Watts." Final Act. 5; see also Watts ,r 7.
Moreover, as noted above, Kates discloses the sensor can
communicate directly with the portable monitoring unit without the need of
transmitting data directly to the base station. Kates ,r 65. The Examiner also
explains that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Kates' s
sensor unit and computer "into a single piece [i.e., to be within the same
housing] in order to have the processing done at a central location, thereby,
increasing the speed in which data is transmitted to a remote device."
Ans. 6. As such, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
determination.
Appellant argues that "Simoncic does not specifically disclose that a
control unit of a smoke detector that receives the indication sounds an alarm
[ as required by claim 1]. In fact, from S imoncic, it is unclear what or how
the signal to other smoke detectors is used by the other smoke detectors."
App. Br. 9. However, as the Examiner points out, Simoncic discloses that
"the smoke detectors are wirelessly connected and that actuation of one
5
Appeal2018-008322
Application 14/965,524
smoke alarm will activate all of the smoke alarms." Ans. 8-9; see also
Simoncic ,r,r 3, 17, and 25 (teaching wireless communication between smoke
detectors and that "the smoke alarm devices shall be interconnected in such
a manner that the actuation of one smoke alarm will activate all of the smoke
alarms"). In other words, like the claimed invention, in Simoncic one smoke
alarm device signals another smoke detector device. A skilled artisan at the
time of the invention would understand that at least one well-known way to
activate a smoke detector would be to sound the alarm as claim 1 recites. As
such, we find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6
and 10 as unpatentable over Kates, Petite, Watts, and Simoncic.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6 and 10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6