Jeanne Gordon

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 9, 2021

2020005277 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2021)

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.
16/139,906 09/24/2018 Jeanne Gordon BBD1442 9413
44088 7590 11/09/2021
KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW
P. O. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
EXAMINER
KUNTZ, CURTIS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2600
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2021 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):
jason@kaufholdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEANNE GORDON
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 10, and 11, which are all claims
pending in the application. Final Act. 2. Claims 2, 8, and 9 are cancelled.
Appeal Br. 9, 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Jeanne Gordon. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The disclosed and claimed subject matter relates to vehicle
temperature warning systems and more particularly pertains to a vehicle
temperature warning system for preventing injury to a child from exposure
to heat or cold within a vehicle. See Spec. ¶ 2.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphases and formatting added to contested prior-art limitations):
1. A child safety seat and temperature warning
system, said system comprising:
a child restraint including a seat and a backrest being
attached to and extending upwardly from said seat;
a processor being mounted in said child restraint;
a weight sensor being mounted within said seat and
detecting when a weight is positioned on said seat;
a heat sensor being mounted in said backrest of said child
restraint and detecting an ambient temperature adjacent to said
child restraint, said weight sensor and said heat sensor being
operationally coupled to said processor;
a vehicle including a dashboard and an alarm system,
said processor being in communication with said alarm system;
said vehicle alarm system emitting sound and flashing
light when said vehicle alarm system receives a warning signal,
said warning signal being sent by said heat sensor to said
processor when said weight sensor detects a weight and said

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Oct. 29, 2019); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 3, 2020); Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 10, 2019); and the original
Specification (“Spec.,” filed Sept. 24, 2018).
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

3
heat sensor detects an unsuitable temperature being greater than
an upper threshold temperature, said alarm system including
a transmitter configured to transmit a cellular
emergency signal, and
a global positioning system providing a location to
said transmitter such that the location is transmitted by
said transmitter;
a cellular remote device; and
a call box, said call box being operationally coupled to
said processor, said call box being programmable to initiate a
telecommunication to said cellular remote device, said
telecommunication including transmitting a temperature within
said vehicle as detected by said heat sensor, said cellular remote
device displaying the temperature within said vehicle as
detected by said heat sensor upon said cellular remote device
receiving said telecommunication wherein said cellular remote
device is configured to display the temperature within said
vehicle as detected by said heat sensor without said
telecommunication being responded to by a user,
said call box being positioned on said dashboard of said
vehicle, said call box being distinct from and extrinsic to said
vehicle alarm system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Seibert US 2014/0052342 A1 Feb. 20, 2014
Beumler et al. (“Beumler”) US 2014/0306838 A1 Oct. 16, 2014
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Beumler and Seibert. Final
Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

4
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the obviousness
Rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 10, and 11 on the basis of representative
claim 1.3
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3–
7, 10, and 11 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference
herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons
and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

5
1. § 103 Rejection: Claims 1, 3–7, 10, and 11
Issue
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 6) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Beumler
and Seibert is in error. These contentions present us with the following
issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a child safety seat and temperature warning system that includes,
inter alia, “said call box being positioned on said dashboard of said vehicle,
said call box being distinct from and extrinsic to said vehicle alarm system,”
as recited in claim 1?
Principles of Law
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where. . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425 (citation omitted).
In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

6
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Id. at 417.
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Analysis
The Examiner relies on the combination of Beumler and Seibert to
teach or suggest the contested limitations of claim 1, i.e., “said call box
being positioned on said dashboard of said vehicle, said call box being
distinct from and extrinsic to said vehicle alarm system.” See Final
Act. 2–4 (citing Beumler Fig. 1B, ¶¶ 37–38; Seibert Figs. 1, 6C, ¶ 145); and
see Ans. 3–4 (citing Beumler Fig. 2 (elements 230, 238, 204), Seibert Fig. 1
(element 50), Fig. 6C (element 50), ¶¶ 145, 169).
Appellant argues the Examiner misinterpreted the Beumler reference,
which allegedly does not teach or suggest the claim limitation with respect
to the recitation of “the call box being extrinsic to and distinct from the
vehicle alarm.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

7
Figure 2 of Beumler is replicated below:

Fig. 2
“FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an example vehicle that includes a
seat assembly.” Beumler ¶ 9.
In particular, the Examiner relies on Beumler to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation cited above. Ans. 3–4, Final Act. 3–4 (citing Beumler
Fig. 2 (elements 230, 238, 204)). The Examiner finds Beumler’s wireless
communication system 230 teaches or at least suggests the claimed call box.
The Examiner further finds Beumler’s alarm system 238 of seat assembly
204 teaches or at least suggests the “vehicle alarm system” as recited in
claim 1. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because, as shown in
Figure 2, above, Beumler’s wireless communication system 230 and alarm
system 238 are separate elements, which we agree are “distinct from and
extrinsic to” each other. See Beumler Fig. 2.
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

8
Figure 1 of Seibert is replicated below:

“FIG.1 illustrates child seat-vehicle safety apparatus and system of the
present invention employed in a passenger vehicle, including a restraint
device associated with the child safety seat, and a portable controller device
that attaches to the On-Board Diagnostic II (OBD-II) port of the vehicle.”
Seibert ¶ 38.
Appellant further argues Seibert’s “call box” is not positioned on the
dash “as it is to plug into the diagnostic port of the vehicle.” Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner finds Seibert’s transmission receiver, attached to the
dashboard (through the diagnostic port), teaches or at least suggests the
disputed limitation “said call box being positioned on said dashboard of said
vehicle.” Final Act. 4 (citing Seibert Figs. 1, 6C, and ¶ 145 (transmission
receiver 54 of device 50 is attached to the OBD-II port)). “It is noted here
that since the portable controller device 50 remains plugged into the OBD-II
port at all times and always has (vehicle battery) power, the listening for and
detection of buckle status signal 200 transmitted from the child seat-side
device 11 goes on continuously.” Seibert ¶ 145.
The Examiner further clarifies the reliance upon Seibert in the Answer
by finding Seibert’s attachment of the device to the underside of the
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

9
dashboard at least suggests positioning a device on the dashboard. Ans. 4
(citing Seibert ¶ 169).
Paragraph 169 of Seibert discloses:
In an alternative embodiment of the portable ignition
detection and controller device, the corresponding interface of
the device for the OBD-II port can be connected to the housing
of the device with a length of cable (not shown). The length of
the cable can vary, depending on whether the user determines
to attach the device to the underside of the dashboard, or to
place the device in hand reach of the vehicle driver, which may
require a longer cable length.
Seibert ¶ 169 (emphasis added). In light of Seibert’s disclosure of
attachment “to the underside of the dashboard,” we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that connection to the OBD-II port, located on the
underside of the dashboard, teaches or at least suggests attachment to the
dashboard, as claimed.
Moreover, Appellant has not traversed the Examiner’s additional
findings and clarifications in the Answer by filing a Reply Brief. Arguments
not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation, because we find the broadly
recited claim term “being positioned on said dashboard” reads on being in
physical contact with the dashboard, as taught by Siebert. Emphasis added.
We do not find Appellant’s Specification to provide a description of the
disputed limitation that attaches a narrower definition to the claim term
“on.” Appellant does not point to or otherwise provide persuasive evidence
or argument that the Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable,
or inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification.
Appeal 2020-005277
Application 16/139,906

10
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 3–7, 10, and 11 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3–7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 10, 11 103 Beumler, Seibert 1, 3–7, 10, 11
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED