Ex Parte WelbergenDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 26, 201110507509 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2011) Copy Citation 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. 10/507,509 09/10/2004 Erwin Welbergen 0005294.0001 1140 34758 7590 09/26/2011 JACK SHORE MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG AMENT&RUBENSTEIN,PC 191 N. WACKER DRIVE SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, IL 60606-1615 EXAMINER VIDWAN, JASJIT S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2182 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte ERWIN WELBERGEN ________________ Appeal 2009-014030 Application 10/507,509 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, JASON V. MORGAN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014030 Application 10/507,509 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 16 – 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim 16. System for preventing the maintaining of a sustained cramped motionless position of a limb comprising an element providing an input signal controllable by a user through interaction with a user’s limb disposed adjacent said element, timing means for determining the length of time when a limb is present and inactive, means coupling the input signal to the timing means such that the timing means is only started when no input signal is being generated and is reset every time an input signal is generated and means for generating an alarm signal to the user when said length of time exceeds a threshold value. ISSUE Are the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 16 – 32 unsustainable because the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Hesley (US 6,489,947 B2) and Casebolt (US 6,661,410 B2) teaches or suggests generating an alarm signal to a user if no user activity is detected for a period of time? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this Appeal 2009-014030 Application 10/507,509 3 appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hesley and Casebolt teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Hesley’s generate warning operation provides a message or tones, thus disclosing generating an alarm signal (col. 14, ll. 39 – 49). Casebolt discloses detecting that a user has rested his hand on a mouse for a relatively long period of time without moving the mouse or activating the scroll wheel or mouse buttons, i.e., lack of user activity for a period of time, in order to enter an EXTENDED IDLE or SHUTDOWN state (col. 15, ll. 15 – 24). We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hesley and Casebolt teaches or suggests generating an alarm signal (as taught by Hesley) if no user activity is detected for a period of time (as taught by Casebolt). This combination would be obvious because it is nothing more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 US 398, 416 (2007). CONCLUSIONS The Examiner has demonstrated that claims 16 – 32 are unpatentable because the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Hesley and Casebolt teaches or suggests generating an alarm signal to a user if no user activity is detected for a period of time. Appeal 2009-014030 Application 10/507,509 4 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16 – 32. 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 ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
