Michael A. Lynch et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2019

14173955 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2019)

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.
14/173,955 02/06/2014 Michael A. Lynch 1510801.215US2[73188US2] 7525
61654 7590 11/01/2019
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
ADNAN, MUHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2019 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):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MICHAEL A. LYNCH and
RADOSLAW ZAKRZEWSKI
____________________

Appeal 2018-005921
Application 14/173,955
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Simmonds
Precision Products, Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-005921
Application 14/173,955
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure “generally relate[s] to wireless sensor systems,
and more particularly, to energy-efficient wireless sensor systems for
asynchronous event monitoring.” Spec. 1. The claims relate to embodiments
for transmitting a wake-up signal including parameters that causes a wireless
sensor to obtain data based on the parameters, deactivating a transceiver
while the sensor collects data, activating the transceiver at a second time,
and sending some of the collected data if an event occurred while the sensor
was collecting data. See Spec. 2–3, 14–15. Claims 1, 7, and 15 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computer implemented method for collecting data in a
network from a remote wireless sensor, comprising:
transmitting a wake-up signal from the network to a
wireless sensor which activates a radio frequency (RF)
transceiver in the wireless sensor with instructions to collect
certain data from the sensor at a first prescribed time, the wake-
up signal including one or more parameters that cause the
wireless sensor to obtain data based on the one or more
parameters;
deactivating the RF transceiver while the sensor collects
data during the prescribed time period;
activating the RF transceiver at a second prescribed time
to communicate with the network to determine if an event has
occurred while data is being collected by the wireless sensor; and
sending a subset of the collected data associated with the
event of interest to the network if it has been determined the
event has occurred.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of San Vicente (US 2013/0078912 A1; Mar. 28, 2013), Oh
(US 2010/0150042 A1; June 17, 2010), and Norair (US 2011/0074552 A1;
Mar. 31, 2011). Non-Final Act. 2–6.
Appeal 2018-005921
Application 14/173,955
3
Claims 3–5 and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of San Vicente, Oh, Norair, and Berenberg (US
2013/0072223 A1; Mar. 21, 2013). Non-Final Act. 6–7.
Claims 6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of San Vicente, Oh, Norair, Berenberg, and Griffiths (US
2010/0145479 A1; June 10, 2010). Non-Final Act. 7–8.
Claims 7, 10–12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of San Vicente, Oh, Norair, Berenberg, and Sturm (US
2012/0320809 A1; Dec. 20, 2012). Non-Final Act. 8–13.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
San Vicente, Oh, Norair, Berenberg, Sturm, and Liu (US 2005/0009578 A1;
Jan. 13, 2005). Non-Final Act. 13.2
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
San Vicente, Oh, Norair, Berenberg, Sturm, and Arvind (US 2009/0323571
A1; Dec. 31, 2009). Non-Final Act. 13–14.3
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
San Vicente, Oh, Norair, Berenberg, Sturm, and Sun (US 2010/0005357 A1;
Jan. 7, 2010). Non-Final Act. 14–15.4

2 Claim 8 depends directly from claim 7, which was rejected as obvious in
view of the combination of San Vicente, Oh, Norair, Berenberg, and Strum.
The Examiner omits Berenberg when stating the rejection of claim 8. We
consider this omission harmless error because the rejection of claim 7 is
stated clearly on the record and it follows necessarily that the rejection of
claim 8 must include all references cited in the rejection of claim 7, from
which claim 8 depends.
3 Claim 9 ultimately depends from claim 7, but the Examiner omits
Berenberg in claim 9’s statement of rejection. This error is harmless.
4 Claim 13 ultimately depends from claim 7, but the Examiner omits
Berenberg in claim 13’s statement of rejection. This error is harmless.
Appeal 2018-005921
Application 14/173,955
4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellant made.
Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues the rejection of all pending claims as a group. See
Br. 7–10 (arguing claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 are patentable based on limitations
recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 15), 10 (arguing Berenberg does not
cure the alleged deficiencies and, therefore, claims 3–5, which depend from
claim 1, and claims 17–19, which depend from claim 15, are allowable for
the reasons presented with respect to independent claims 1 and 15), 11
(arguing Griffiths does not cure the alleged deficiencies and, therefore,
claims 6 and 20, which depend from claims 1 and 15, respectively, are
allowable for the reasons presented with respect to independent claims 3–5
and 17–19), 11–12 (arguing claims 7, 10–12, and 14 are allowable because
claim 7 recites a limitation similar to the limitation allegedly not taught in
claims 1 and 15, and claims 10–12 and 14 depend from claim 7), 12–13
(arguing none of Liu, Arvind, and Sun cure the alleged deficiencies and,
therefore, claims 8, 9, and 13, which depend from claim 7, are allowable for
the reasons presented with respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 15). We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds the combination of San Vicente, Oh, and Norair
teaches or suggests every limitation recited in representative claim 1. Final
Act. 2–5. The Examiner finds San Vicente teaches or suggests the majority
of limitations recited in claim 1, but finds San Vicente “does not explicitly
teach that a wake-up signal from the network to a wireless sensor is
Appeal 2018-005921
Application 14/173,955
5
transmitted,” but finds Oh teaches transmitting and receiving a wake up
signal that wakes up a sensor from a sleeping state. Final Act. 2–5 (citing
San Vicente ¶¶ 184, 271, 287–288, 291, 294, 296, Fig. 1; Oh ¶¶ 37–38). Of
particular note, the Examiner finds the combination of San Vicente and Oh
fails to teach “the wakeup signal includes one or more parameters that cause
the wireless sensor to obtain data based on the one or more parameters,” but
the Examiner finds Norair teaches this limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Norair
p. 30 (claim 54), Abstract). Specifically, the Examiner finds Norair’s
disclosure of a wake-up frame that “includes [a] count-down integer
indicating [the] number of wakeup frames before a request frame is sent”
teaches or suggests a wakeup signal (i.e., Norair’s wakeup frame) that
includes a parameter (i.e., Norair’s count-down integer) that causes the
sensor to obtain data (i.e., Norair causes a device to receive a request packet)
based on the parameter (i.e., Norair receives the request packet after
expiration of the count-down integer). Final Act. 5 (citing Norair p. 30
(claim 54), Abstract); Ans. 3 (additionally citing Norair ¶¶ 164–165). The
Examiner also provides a rationale for combining San Vicente, Oh, and
Norair’s cited teachings. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues the cited portions of Norair teach when a device
“will receive a request signal irrespective of obtaining of data by the device”
but fail to teach or suggest “a wake-up signal that includes parameters that
cause the sensor to obtain data as a function of the parameters.” Br. 7–8
(emphasis added). Appellant contends “Norair simply does not disclose a
wake-up signal that includes parameters that tell the sensor how to obtain
information.” Br. 8. Appellant further argues the Examiner’s rejection is
based on an unreasonably broad claim construction that fails to consider the
Specification and drawings. Br. 8. Appellant asserts Norair’s count-down
Appeal 2018-005921
Application 14/173,955
6
integer merely indicates the number of frames before a request frame is sent
and, therefore, Norair’s “‘wake-up frame’ does not include a true start time,
or any other features associated with the actual acquisition of data.” Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Norair fails to
teach representative claim 1’s recited “wake-up signal including one or more
parameters that cause the wireless sensor to obtain data based on the one or
more parameters.”5 Contrary to Appellant’s argument, claim 1 does not
require a device to obtain data “as a function of” the parameters; nor does
claim 1 require that the recited parameters specify how to obtain data. Br. 7–
8. Rather, as the Examiner explains, Ans. 4–5, claim 1 requires only that the
received wake-up signal includes parameters that “cause the wireless sensor
to obtain data based on the” parameters.

5 Although Appellant does not argue claim 1’s sending step is not taught by
the prior art, we note the sending step is conditioned on a determination that
the event has occurred, but claim 1 recites only determining whether an
event has occurred. Similarly, claim 7’s transmitting and deactivating steps
are performed in response to receiving, respectively, a confirmation that an
event occurred and a negative acknowledgment indicating an event has not
occurred. Should this matter undergo further prosecution, we encourage the
Examiner to evaluate whether these conditional limitations need to be shown
in the prior art. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL
6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method
claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if
the condition precedent is not met); MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing
Schulhauser).

Appeal 2018-005921
Application 14/173,955
7
The Specification discloses that examples of “data collection
parameters may include data acquisition start time, data acquisition time
interval, sampling rate, and the like.” Spec. 14. The Specification further
describes an embodiment in which a sensor may start acquiring data “at the
specified start time based on the parameters included in the” wake-up signal.
Spec. 14. As the Examiner also correctly notes, Ans. 4–5, Appellant does not
define or otherwise use the claim language in a way that would alter the
plain and ordinary meaning of the recited terms. Accordingly, we agree with
the Examiner that the disputed limitation merely requires obtaining (i.e.,
acquiring, receiving, attaining, procuring, or getting) data (i.e., information)
based on (i.e., deriving, flowing, or stemming from) a parameter (i.e., a
criterion or characteristic).
Norair discloses systems and methods in which a device may receive
wakeup frames that include an integer indicating the number of wakeup
frames remaining before a request packet will arrive. Norair ¶ 164. Upon
receipt of a wakeup packet, Norair’s device determines “the time until a
request packet 1400 is expected . . . then returns to an inactive (sleep) state
until that time, reactivating in sufficient time to receive request packet
1400.” Norair ¶ 165 (emphases added). Accordingly, Norair teaches or
suggests the recited “wake-up signal” (i.e., Norair’s wakeup packet)
“including one or more parameters” (i.e., Norair’s countdown integer
indicating the time until a request packet is expected). Norair ¶¶ 164–165.
Norair also teaches or suggests the parameter (i.e., the countdown integer)
“cause[s] the wireless sensor to obtain data” (i.e., Norair receives the request
packet) “based on the one or more parameters” (i.e., Norair’s device
reactivates itself based on the countdown integer in order to receive the
request packet).
Appeal 2018-005921
Application 14/173,955
8
For the above reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 as obvious in view of the
combination of San Vicente, Oh, and Norair. The Examiner does not find
any of Berenberg, Griffiths, Sturm, Liu, Arvind, and Sun cure this
deficiency. Therefore, for the same reasons addressed with respect to
representative claim 1, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2–20, which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35
U.S.C. §
References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 15, 16 103 San Vicente, Oh, Norair 1, 2, 15,
16

3–5, 17–19 103 San Vicente, Oh, Norair,
Berenberg
3–5, 17–
19

6, 20 103 San Vicente, Oh, Norair,
Berenberg, Griffiths
6, 20
7, 10–12, 14 103 San Vicente, Oh, Norair,
Berenberg, Sturm
7, 10–12,
14

8 103 San Vicente, Oh, Norair,
Berenberg, Sturm, Liu
8
9 103 San Vicente, Oh, Norair,
Berenberg, Sturm, Arvind
9
13 103 San Vicente, Oh, Norair,
Berenberg, Sturm, Sun
13
Overall Outcome 1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED