Ex Parte Zhang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2016

13478033 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/478,033
101575 7590
Wei Zhang
88 Cypress Place
Newtown, PA 18940
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
05/22/2012 Wei Zhang
11/17/2016
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.
INWZ1203 3012
EXAMINER
MAHASE, PAMESHANAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2016 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 WEI ZHANG
Appeal2015-006672
Application 13/478,033
Technology Center
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 18-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-17 are cancelled.
App. Br. 3.
We affirm and designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection
within the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2014).
Appeal2015-006672
Application 13/478,033
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's application
relates to . . . using [a] mobile communication device, for
example a mobile phone, to improve home safety, and in
particular, to using a mobile communication device to accept [an]
RF (Radio Frequency) signal sent by [a] home appliance
component having [a] status sensor incorporated therewith and
to alert [a] user for [a] potential safety issue following the
acknowledgement of the RF signal.
Spec i-f 3. Claim 18, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
18. A burner switch knob embodying a control circuit
comprising a position sensor and a RF transmitter, whereby, in
operation, the knob is used for control of a cooking apparatus
and said control circuit detects a position change of the knob by
using said position sensor and causes said RF transmitter to
send out a RF signal in accordance with said position change.
Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)1 as being
unpatentable over Volodarsky (US 2006/0202848 Al; Sept. 14, 2006),
Gorman et al. (US 2008/0047672 Al; Feb 28, 2008) ("Gorman"), and Gagas
et al. (US 2007/0028912 Al; Feb. 8, 2007) ("Gagas"). See Final Act. 2--4.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Volodarsky, Gorman, Gagas, and Coronel et al. (US
2008/0164995 Al; July 10, 2008). See Final Act. 4-5.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Dec. 5, 2014; "Reply Br." filed July 6, 2015) and the Specification
("Spec." filed May 22, 2012) for the positions of Appellant and the Final
Office Action ("Final Act." mailed June 13, 2014) and Answer ("Ans."
1 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the America Invents Act of 2011. Final Act 2.
2
Appeal2015-006672
Application 13/478,033
mailed May 8, 2015) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the
Examiner.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUE
Based on Appellant's arguments, we discuss the appeal by referring
to claim 18. The issue presented by Appellant's contentions is whether the
Examiner errs in finding the combination of Volodarsky, Gorman, and
Gagas teaches or suggests a "burner switch knob embodying a control circuit
comprising a position sensor and a RF transmitter," as recited in claim 18.
ANALYSIS
Appellant's arguments for the patentability of claim 18 boil down to a
contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have put an RF
transmitter in Volodarsky's range knob 102 (Volodarsky Figs. 1, 3). See
generally App. Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 2-13. Volodarsky's Figure 1 is
reproduced below:
3
Appeal2015-006672
Application 13/478,033
RM