Ex Parte Wagner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

12807916 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

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.
12/807,916 09/16/2010 Ronald E. Wagner BAEP-1350 4376
22500 7590 02/22/2016
BAE SYSTEMS
PO BOX 868
NHQ1-719
NASHUA, NH 03061-0868
EXAMINER
MUNDUR, PADMAVATHI V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2016 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 RONALD E. WAGNER

____________

Appeal 2014-004401
Application 12/807,916
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1−14, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is BAE Systems. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-004401
Application 12/807,916

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s present patent application relates to a low bandwidth
monitoring system that transmits sensor data to a processing location.
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. In a performance monitoring system involving multiple
sensors located at the monitored system, a method for reducing
the bandwidth of the transmission of the sensor outputs to a
listener, comprising the steps of:
embedding a filter algorithm at the monitored system the
embedded algorithm defining predetermined thresholds for
predetermined sensors and for outputting the fact of an
exceedance of the associated threshold when such an exceedance
occurs; and,
transmitting only the outputted fact of an exceedence to
the listener utilizing a time division multiple access system, the
outputted fact of an exceedence being transmitted time slot by
time slot, whereby the bandwidth of the transmission of the data
from the sensors is reduced due to transmitting only exceedances.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Andarawis (US 2007/0118301 A1; May 24, 2007). See Final
Act. 3.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Andarawis and Greenwald (US 2006/0189852 A1; Aug.
24, 2006). See Final Act. 4−5.
Appeal 2014-004401
Application 12/807,916

3
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Andarawis, Greenwald, and Kates (US 2009/0153336 A1;
June 18, 2009). See Final Act. 6−8.
Claims 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Andarawis and Kates. See Final Act. 8−9.

ANALYSIS
Claim 9
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because
Andarawis does not disclose “outputting the fact of an exceedance when an
exceedance of the predetermined threshold occurs” or “transmitting the fact
of an exceedance of the predetermined threshold to a listener.” Br. 5−6. In
particular, Appellant argues that Andarawis outputs and transmits data
indicating the number of threshold crossing events, rather than the fact of an
exceedance of the predetermined threshold. Br. 6. We disagree. As found
by the Examiner, Andarawis discloses the output and transmission of the
occurrence of a threshold-crossing event in real-time or in a batch. Ans. 3
(citing Andarawis ¶ 42). The occurrence of a threshold-crossing event
comprises “the fact of an exceedance” and Andarawis discloses outputting
and transmitting such occurrences individually or in batches. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument the Examiner erred in finding
Andarawis discloses “outputting the fact of an exceedance when an
exceedance of the predetermined threshold occurs” and “transmitting the
fact of an exceedance of the predetermined threshold to a listener.”
Appeal 2014-004401
Application 12/807,916

4
Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for the same
reason as claim 9. See Br. 6−8. We are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding Andarawis discloses “outputting the fact of an exceedance
when an exceedance of the predetermined threshold occurs” and
“transmitting the fact of an exceedance of the predetermined threshold to a
listener” for the reasons set forth above.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
neither Andarawis nor Greenwald teaches or suggests “transmitting only the
outputted fact of an exceedence to the listener utilizing a time division
multiple access system, the outputted fact of an exceedence being
transmitted time slot by time slot.” Br. 8. In particular, Appellant argues
Greenwald does not disclose the disputed limitation because in Greenwald,
the time division multiple access (TDMA) system “does not pick and choose
what transmissions are to be transmitted over a particular time slot.” Br. 8.
Appellant argues that Greenwald does not disclose limiting “what goes into
a time slot as recited in independent claim 1.” Id.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner
erred in finding Greenwald teaches “transmitting only the outputted fact of
an exceedence to the listener utilizing a time division multiple access
system, the outputted fact of an exceedence being transmitted time slot by
time slot.” As found by the Examiner, Greenwald teaches using the TDMA
protocol to transmit that a threshold-crossing event occurred at a sensor.
Ans. 5 (citing Greenwald ¶ 38). As further found by the Examiner, TDMA
allows a plurality of senders to transmit data using time division
multiplexing, which associates each sender with a time slot, and data from
Appeal 2014-004401
Application 12/807,916

5
each sender is sent within the assigned time slot. Ans. 5. Appellant’s
arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner does not rely upon
Greenwald for transmitting only the fact of an exceedance using the TDMA
protocol. See Ans. 4−5, Final Act. 4−5. Instead, the Examiner relies upon
Greenwald for disclosing the use of TDMA to transmit threshold-crossing
signals while Andarawis discloses transmitting the fact of an exceedance.
See id. We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the TDMA teachings
of Greenwald with the sensor reporting of Andarawis to transmit the fact of
an exceedance from multiple sensors reliably without the risk of collisions.
Ans. 5.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 9. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Andarawis. We also sustain the rejection of claim
14, which was not argued separately. See Br. 5−6.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Andarawis and Greenwald. We also sustain
the rejection of claims 2−8 and 10−13, which were not argued separately.
See Br. 8−9.

Appeal 2014-004401
Application 12/807,916

6
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1−14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED