Ex Parte Worthington et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 2, 201613015327 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/015,327 01127/2011 14941 7590 08/04/2016 HONEYWELL/CONLEY ROSE Honeywell International Inc 115 Tabor Road PO Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen David Worthington 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. H0027804 _ 4341-33800 2414 EXAMINER TERRELL, EMILY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN DAVID WORTHINGTON, JERRY WAYNE EVANS, and PATRICK GERARD HOGAN Appeal2014-007028 Application 13/015,327 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHN F. HORVATH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-007028 Application 13/015,327 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed to detecting, generating, and reporting robust man-down alarms. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 9. A system comprising: at least one detector; and a central station in two-way communication with the at least one detector, wherein the detector transmits an ambient condition sensor signal and a motion sensor signal to the central station, and, wherein the central station correlates the received ambient condition sensor signal and the received motion sensor signal to determine whether a man-down event is likely to have occurred before generating any alarm, and based on the determination, initiates one of a first alarm indicating an ambient condition alarm, a second alarm indicating an ambient condition alarm and a man-down alarm, a third alarm indicating a man-down alarm, or a fourth alarm indicating a miscellaneous alarm. Bieback Campman Montenero REFERENCES us 6,121,881 US 7,538,666 B2 US 2010/0081411 Al REJECTIONS Sept. 19, 2000 May 26, 2009 Apr. 1, 2010 Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bieback and Campman. Non-Final Act. 3. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bieback, Campman, and Montenero. Non-Final Act. 9. 2 Appeal2014-007028 Application 13/015,327 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We highlight the following for emphasis. Claims 1-20 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because neither Bieback nor Campman discloses a system comprising "at least one detector; and a central station in two-way communication with the at least one detector, wherein the detector transmits an ambient condition sensor [signal] and a motion sensor signal." App. Br. 5, 7. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bieback's mask 10/102, which includes a communication device 23, environmental sensor 51, motion sensor 52, and is in in two-way communication with command post 70/command module 200 teaches the recited limitation. See Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 11-13, see also Bieback Figs. 1, 10, and 13. For example, Bieback teaches command module 200 "includes a transceiver 201 for receiving data from and a repeater 203 for sending data to the communication devices 102." Bieback 10:1-7. Bieback teaches mask 10/102 includes an environmental sensor 51 "for detecting the presence of toxic gases," and for "generat[ing] a signal 81 ... indicative of the air conditions," and a transceiver 63 that "transmits this data to the command post 70." Id. at 12:30-36. Bieback further teaches mask 10/102 includes a motion detector 52 that "detect[ s] when the mask wearer is 3 Appeal2014-007028 Application 13/015,327 motionless for a predetermined period of time," and that "send[ s] a distress signal when the motionless condition is detected." Id. at 12:48-56. Appellants next argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because neither Bieback nor Campman discloses: wherein the central station correlates the received ambient condition sensor signal and the received motion sensor signal to determine whether a man-down even is likely to have occurred before generating any alarm, and based on the determination, initiates one of a first alarm indicating an ambient condition alarm, a second alarm indicating an ambient condition alarm and a man-down alarm, a third alarm indicating a man-down alarm, or a fourth alarm indicating a miscellaneous alarm. App. Br. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. "A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also Jn re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board [has] reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"). Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because there was no reason to combine Bieback and Campman as neither reference "recognize[s] the problem solved by the claimed invention." App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 6. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. "In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular invention nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Thus, whether Bieback or 4 Appeal2014-007028 Application 13/015,327 Campman recognized the problem solved by the invention is not determinative of the obviousness of the invention. See, e.g., Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("an analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill in the art"). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bieback's system based on the teachings of Campman "to correctly identify alarms, for the safety and wellbeing of the user, which would produce known results with a reasonable expectation of success." Non-Final Act. 4. Lastly, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because Bieback "fails to disclose any correlation," and Campman "merely 'correlates the received data to determine the person's identity, status, and location."' Reply Br. 4 (quoting Campman 8:6-7). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. "Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer ... will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown." 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Although Appellants' alleged in their Appeal Brief that Campman fails to disclose the correlation limitation, they did so without explaining why. See App. Br. 5; Non-Final Act. 4. Appellants' explanation-raised for the first time in their Reply Brief-that Campman fails to disclose the limitation because Campman merely discloses correlating the received data to determine identity, status, and location, fails to include a showing of good cause why it could not have been raised in the Appeal Brief. 5 Appeal2014-007028 Application 13/015,327 Moreover, Appellants' explanation does not persuade us that the combination of Bieback and Campman fails to teach or suggest "correlat[ing] the received ambient condition sensor signal and the received motion sensor signal to determine whether a man-down even is likely to have occurred" as recited in claim 9. Campman teaches sending, from a personal transceiver device 114, "location data along with ... personal identification and status data back to the command base monitor 120." Campman 8:29-33. The status data can include, but is not limited to, motion data, motion alarm data, and ambient condition data (e.g., temperature, air pressure and air remaining in a breathing tank). Id. at 4:44-- 52). Campman further teaches command base monitor 120 can be a personal computer (PC) that "manages the radio signals transmitted to and received from the personal transceiver device 114," and that "correlates the received data to determine the person's identity, status, and location." Id. at 8: 6-7 (emphases added). Thus, Campman teaches or suggests correlating received data, including received status data such as motion and ambient condition data, to determine the person's status. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 and sustain the rejection. Appellants do not separately argue for the patentability of claims 2-20. See App. Br. 4-- 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons. 6 Appeal2014-007028 Application 13/015,327 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are sustained. 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 )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation