Power Survey LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2021

2020005241 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
14/828,062 08/17/2015 David Kalokitis PRS004CIPC5 1945
54698 7590 12/17/2021
MOSER TABOADA
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
MAINI, RAHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2866
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2021 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID KALOKITIS, LEONARD JOSHUA SCHULTZ,
CHRISTOS ALKIVIADIS POLYZOIS, and
VINCENT PARAGANO
Appeal 2020-005241
Application 14/828,062
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction 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(a) (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Power
Survey LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005241
Application 14/828,062

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A mobile apparatus mounted to a motor vehicle for
identifying a hazardously energized object, the apparatus
comprising:
one or more sensor probes that (i) detect an electric
field resulting from a stray voltage anomaly present on an
object electrically energized due to a fault in an electrical
power distribution system and (ii) provide an analog signal
corresponding to the electric field;
a signal converter that generates a digital signal from
the analog signal;
a processor that processes the digital signal and
generates, based on the processed digital signal, an
indication to a user that the object is energized, wherein the
indication is based on the frequency of the electrical power
distribution system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Thomas et al (hereinafter
“Thomas”)
3,662,260 May 9, 1972
Geiszler et al
(hereinafter “Geiszler”)
4,064,499 Dec. 20, 1977
Ito et al.
(hereinafter “Ito”)
4,476,579 Oct. 9, 1984
Kraz 5,773,974 June 30, 1998

Appeal 2020-005241
Application 14/828,062

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12, 14–18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AlA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Ito.
2. Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Ito and further in view of
Geiszler.
3. Claims 8, 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Ito and further in
view of Kraz.
OPINION
Appellant does not make separate arguments in support of
patentability of any particular claim or claim grouping. Appeal Br. 7–10.
Accordingly, the claims subject to each ground of rejection will stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). As such, our determination with
regard to Rejection 1 is dispositive for Rejections 2 and 3.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). Upon consideration of the
evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find
that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over
the applied art. Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections
Appeal 2020-005241
Application 14/828,062

4
on appeal essentially for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and
in the Answer, with the following emphasis.
Beginning on page 6 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s position involves an understanding that Thomas teaches a
mobile apparatus that measures changing magnetic fields to detect an
electric field. See also Reply Br. 2. In response, the Examiner disagrees
with Appellant’s assessment of the rejection in this regard, and states that the
Examiner did not find any mention of magnetic fields in the Thomas
reference, and Thomas’s teachings involve detection of an electric field.
Ans. 3–4; Thomas col 2. Thus, this line of argument offered by Appellant is
unpersuasive because it does not adequately address the Examiner’s position
and teachings of Thomas.
Appellant next argues that Appellant’s claim 1 requires a mobile
apparatus that detects a specific type of electric field — i.e., the electric field
resulting from a stray voltage anomaly present on an object electrically
energized due to a fault in an electrical power distribution system — which
by its nature has specific properties (e.g., frequency, strength, uniformity).
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant submits that neither Thomas nor Ito suggests such
an electric field or the detection of such an electric field. Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant states that the Examiner relies upon the embodiment of Thomas’
Figure 14 for depicting a mobile vehicle having a probe used to sense
electric fields due to an explosion. Appellant argues that such an electric
field does not emanate from an electrically energized object as required by
claim 1, and that there is nothing in Thomas to suggest his device that senses
an electric field due to an explosion can also detect the specific electric field
Appeal 2020-005241
Application 14/828,062

5
recited in claim 1. A similar line of argument is presented on pages 2–4 of
the Reply Brief.
In response, beginning on page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner states
that there is nothing to differentiate an electric field generated by an object
energized due to a fault in an electric power distribution system from any
other electric field, and that the probes recited in the claims do not differ
structurally. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argue that the probes, as recited
in the claims, differ in terms of function. Reply Br. 3. However, we note
that “[e]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an
intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the
apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure
being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young,
75 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA
1963)). In summary, the material or article worked upon does not limit the
apparatus claim. Moreover, Appellant does not adequately establish that the
structural elements in the claims are patentably different.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1–3.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.

Appeal 2020-005241
Application 14/828,062

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 9,
12, 14–
18, 20
103(a) Thomas, Ito 1, 3–7, 9,
12, 14–18,
20

2, 13 103(a) Thomas, Ito,
Geiszler
2, 13
8, 10, 11,
19
103(a) Thomas, Ito, Kraz 8, 10, 11, 19
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) (2013).
AFFIRMED