Ex Parte Ahmed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2012

10952236 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2012)

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.
10/952,236 09/27/2004 Osman Ahmed 2004P16403 US 8007
7590 12/27/2012
Siemens Corporation
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
BLOUNT, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2012 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 OSMAN AHMED, MARTIN GLANZER, MAXIMILIAN
FLEISCHER, and PETER GULDEN
____________

Appeal 2010-006956
Application 10/952,236
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-4, 8-18, 20, 22, and 24. Claims 5-7, 19, 21, and 23 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Appeal 2010-006956
Application 10/952,236

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a cage telemetry system for
remotely obtaining sensor and/or location information for one or more cages.
(See generally Spec. 1 (Field of the Invention).)
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with key disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A cage telemetry system comprising:
a plurality of cage groups located within a space, each
cage group including a plurality of animal cages, each cage
associated with at least one telemetry module;
a first radio transponder operable to effect wireless
communications with each telemetry module of a first cage
group;
a second radio transponder operable to effect wireless
communications with each telemetry module of a second cage
group;
a hub element operable to communicate with the first
radio transponder and the second radio transponder, the hub
element operably connected to a computer network;
a first support structure supporting the first radio
transponder and each telemetry module of the first cage group;
a second support structure supporting the second radio
transponder and each telemetry module of the second cage
group.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 8-18, 20-22, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Petite (US 6,437,692 B1; issued Aug.
20, 2002) and Ingley (US 6,998,980 B2; filed May 1, 2003). (Ans. 3-8.)

Appeal 2010-006956
Application 10/952,236

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Petite discloses every recited limitation of
claim 1, except for the plurality of cages and the first and second support
structure limitations. (Ans. 3-5.) The Examiner, however, relies on the
teachings of Ingley and general knowledge in the art to cure these
deficiencies. (Ans. 5-7.)
On the other hand, Appellants contend “neither Petite nor Ingley,
either alone or in combination, teach or suggest ‘a first radio transponder
operable to effect wireless communications with each telemetry module of a
first cage group’ in combination with a ‘first support structure supporting a
first radio transponder and each telemetry module of a first cage group’.”
(App. Br. 7.) Appellants also assert that the claimed invention solves a
problem not contemplated by Ingley or Petite (Ans. 9.) and that the proposed
modification defeats the essential purpose of the transponder in Ingley.
(Reply Br. 3-4.)
With respect to claim 16, the Examiner again finds that the Petite and
Ingley collectively teach or suggest every limitation. (Ans. 6-7.)
Appellants, however, argue that the Examiner fails to provide “a clearly
articulated reason to modify Petite (as modified by Ingley) to include” (App.
Br. 13) the claimed hub limitation. (App. Br. 12-13; see also Reply Br. 5-6.)

ISSUE
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that the cited
prior art collectively teaches or suggests a first radio transponder operable to
effect wireless communications with each telemetry module of a first cage
Appeal 2010-006956
Application 10/952,236

4
group and a first support structure supporting the first radio transponder and
each telemetry module of the first cage group?
2. With respect to claim 16, is the Examiner’s reason to combine
the teachings of these references supported by articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 8-15, 22, and 24
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1
as obvious. Namely, we are not persuaded that the cited prior art
collectively fails to teach or suggest “a first radio transponder operable to
effect wireless communications with each telemetry module of a first cage
group” and “a first support structure supporting the first radio transponder
and each telemetry module of the first cage group.”
Appellants’ argument that the cited prior art, collectively, fails to
teach the disputed limitation unpersuasively focuses only on the teaching of
Ingley. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)(finding that one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references); see also In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, Appellants
maintain that Ingley fails to teach “a ‘first support structure supporting a first
radio transponder and each telemetry module of a first cage group’, wherein
the each telemetry module communicates wirelessly with the first
transponder.” (App. Br. 8 (emphasis in original).) The Examiner, however,
Appeal 2010-006956
Application 10/952,236

5
relies on Petite for teaching wireless communication between the radio
transponder and each telemetry module. (Ans. 3 (citing Petite, Fig. 2).)
Appellants’ argument is also unavailing because, as Appellants admit,
Ingley’s Figure 1 teaches wireless communication with a cage telemetry
module. (App. Br. 8.) Appellants do not challenge that the table in Figure
4, on which the cages 420 rest, teaches the claimed first support structure but
focus only on Figure 4 showing wired communication between a
transponder and cage telemetry module. Appellants, however, fail to
sufficiently address that Ingley’s Figure 1 depicts using wireless
communications. Moreover, as the Examiner identifies, it was well known
at the time of the invention to interchangeably use wireless and wired
communication systems. (Ans. 9.) Appellants fail to persuasively argue
against these findings. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the cited prior
art collectively fails to teach “a first radio transponder operable to effect
wireless communications with each telemetry module of a first cage group”
and “a first support structure supporting the first radio transponder and each
telemetry module of the first cage group.”
Appellants’ remaining arguments are likewise unpersuasive. For
example, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner’s finding of
obviousness would require “leaving [Ingley’s] transponder 430 in place.”
(Reply Br. 3.) “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.”
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. As identified by the Examiner and as discussed
above, the teachings of Petite and Ingley, collectively, would teach or
Appeal 2010-006956
Application 10/952,236

6
suggest “a first radio transponder operable to effect wireless
communications with each telemetry module of a first cage group” and “a
first support structure supporting the first radio transponder and each
telemetry module of the first cage group.” Additionally, contrary to
Appellants’ assertions, Ingley does not identify the “essential purpose” or
primary reason of the transponder as eliminating the need for wireless
transponders in each cage (Reply. Br. 2-3.) but instead merely identifies this
as a possible advantage. (Ingley, col. 5, ll. 52-59.) Therefore, we see no
error in the Examiner’s finding that Petite and Ingley, collectively, render
the claimed invention obvious.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1 as well as independent claim 9 and dependent claims 2-4, 8, 10-15,
22, and 24, not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 16 and 24
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 16
as obvious. Namely, we are not persuaded that the Examiner failed to
provide sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the
obviousness conclusion.
Appellants’ argument again unpersuasively focuses on the teaching of
Ingley. In particular, Appellants maintain that the Examiner failed to
“provide[] a clearly articulated reason to modify the direct cage-to-PWD
[personal wireless communications device] communication taught by Ingley
with the hub-to-PWD communication technique of claim 16.” (App. Br. 12)
Notably, Appellants do not address the teachings of Petite.
Appeal 2010-006956
Application 10/952,236

7
As identified by the Examiner, a skilled artisan would recognize, from
the teachings of Petite, that a hub element would provide the advantages of
receiving and viewing data from several locations in a system, on one or
more central devices without requiring the central device to communicate
with each individual telemetry module in the system. (Ans. 10 (citing
Figure 2 and mapping the local gateway as the hub element).) Further, as
also found by the Examiner, Ingley demonstrates that it was known in the art
of cage monitoring systems to communicate with PWDs. (Ans. 10.)
Appellants have not presented any persuasive argument or evidence to rebut
these findings. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
[h]aving both Petite and Ingley on hand, it would have been
obvious to modify the invention of Petite to include a PWD as a
central device for viewing communication data (similar to a
laptop) from at least one of the telemetry modules (sensors).
(Ans. 10)

And we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 16 and
dependent claims 17, 18, and 20, not separately argued with particularity.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 8-18,
20, 22, and 24.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 8-18, 20, 22, and 24 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2010-006956
Application 10/952,236

8
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).

AFFIRMED

gvw