Ex Parte Basir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 1, 2013

11046523 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OTMAN ADAM BASIR and DAVID BULLOCK
____________

Appeal 2011-003330
Application 11/046,523
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, BRADFORD E. KILE, and
RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KILE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003330
Application 11/046,523

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-19. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants’1 (Otman Adam Basir and David Bullock) invention is
directed to “a device and method for verifying the integrity of data obtained,
stored and transmitted from a data acquisition device.” Spec. 1, para.
[0002].
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of verifying data integrity comprising the
steps of:

a) sensing a condition indicative of faulty data
acquisition integrity collected by a device,
wherein at least one of the sensed conditions
includes detecting an absence of power from a
main power source to the device;

b) obtaining data indicative of movement of the
device during the detected absence of main power
by powering at least one sensing device powered
by a back-up power source disposed within the
device;

c) storing data indicative of the sensed condition as
an encoded entry;

d) forwarding the encoded entry with other acquired
data to a central processor;

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Intelligent Mechatronic
Systems Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2011-003330
Application 11/046,523

3

e) evaluating the encoded entry against
predetermined criteria; and

f) indicating that data integrity has been
compromised responsive to a failure of the
encoded entry to fall within the predetermined
criteria.
App. Br., Clms. App’x.

The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Nakajima US 6,040,763 Mar. 21, 2000
Morand US 6,232,886 B1 May 15, 2001
Ahearn US 6,466,134 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
Mayor US 2002/0027502 A1 Mar. 07, 2002
Doyle WO 96/10807 A1 Apr. 11, 1996
Kinoshita JP 2000-88680A Mar. 31, 2000

Appellants request review of the following rejections advanced on
Appeal:
Claims 1 and 5-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyle, Morand, and Kinoshita.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyle, Morand, Kinoshita, and Nakajima.
Claims 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyle, Morand, and Kinoshita.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyle, Morand, Kinoshita, and Ahearn.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyle, Morand, Kinoshita, and Mayor.
.
App
App

The D
eal 2011-0
lication 11
isclosed
Appellan
03330
/046,523
Invention.
ts’ Specif
O

ication Fig
4

PINION
ures 1 and

2 are rep

roduced be

low:

Appeal 2011-003330
Application 11/046,523

5
Figures 1 and 2 are schematic views illustrating an embodiment of the
claimed device and method of verifying data integrity of a monitoring device
14 for, as an example, an automobile 12. See Spec. 3, para. [0015]. The
monitoring device 14 includes a power module 38 with a rechargeable
battery 40. See Spec. 4, para. [0018]. A sensor module 44 includes a
vibration sensor 48. See Spec. 5, para. [0022]. In operation the functional
integrity of the monitoring device 14 can be monitored, even when vehicle
power is off, by operation of the monitoring device sensor module 44 as
powered by the rechargeable battery 40. See Spec. 7-8, paras. [0029] -
[0032].

Obviousness – Claims 1 and 5-13.
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 primarily over the Doyle
publication which discloses a system and method for detecting fault
conditions with a vehicle monitoring and control system. Doyle 1, ll. 7-10.
In the Doyle system when a vehicle main power supply is turned off, the
mobile communications terminal (MCT) enters a SLEEP mode. Id. at 8, ll.
2-4. Upon resumption of a READY mode of operation, software compares
operative data upon entering the SLEEP mode and the current READY
mode and any appreciable difference is deemed attributable to unauthorized
vehicle operation. Id. at 9, ll. 5-20.
The Examiner finds that Doyle does not “explicitly disclose detecting
a movement” but “introduces a secondary reference (Morand) to clarify the
detection of movement.” Ans. 5, ll. 5-6. In addition the Examiner finds that
neither Doyle nor Morand “disclose[s] a backup power to power at least the
sensor . . . .” Id. at ll. 8-10. For this feature the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2011-003330
Application 11/046,523

6
Kinoshita “teaches a backup battery the [sic] power up the sensor in case
there is an interruption to the main power supply. . . .” Id. at 5, ll. 11-12.
Appellants assert that the Morand patent is directed to an electric
watt-hour meter that includes a motion detection sensor that sets a “Tamper
Flag” when motion is sensed after power is disconnected. App. Br. 7, ll. 20-
22. Appellants note that Kinoshita “disclose[s] an internal power supply.”
Id. at 8, ll. 10-11. We note that the portion of the Kinoshita disclosure
identified by the Examiner as being particularly relevant is directed to
operation of shock sensing sensors in electronic equipment when the main
power supply is turned off. Ans. 5, l. 12; Kinoshita (translation) 1-2, [0006]
– [0009]. Primarily, however, Appellants contest the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 on the basis that the primary Doyle publication teaches a power
off system while Appellants’ invention is directed to motion or other fault
detection with an always on back-up system. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1-3.
Specifically Appellants argue:
In clear terms and explanation, the device disclosed in
Doyle requires an absence of power in order to work
properly. The Doyle device uses the lack of data written
to the RAM due to the lack of power to generate gaps in
data. It is these gaps in data that are utilized by the Doyle
device to identify when tampering may be present.
(Doyle pages 7-8).

Reply Br. 2 (Emphasis in original).

We agree with Appellants. The fundamental difference in operation
of the Doyle power off published monitoring system as compared with the
subject claimed power on invention, coupled with the remoteness of the
secondary references, convinces us that the Examiner has failed to establish
Appeal 2011-003330
Application 11/046,523

7
even a prima facie case of obviousness of Appellants’ claim 1. To draw on
knowledge of Appellants’ own invention, when the prior art does not contain
or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own
reconstruction. Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570
(Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint
has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the
state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made. Id. (citing
with approval Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138
(Fed. Cir. 1985)). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5-13 are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1. Since
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 has been reversed, the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 5-13 are also reversed. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under
section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.”)

Obviousness – Claims 14-16.
Claim 14, along with claim 1, are the only independent claims on
appeal. The Examiner has not independently identified a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 14. Rather the Examiner states “claims 14-16 are
rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1-13.” Ans.
14, ll. 7-8.
Having determined that claims 1 and 5-13 are not obvious and
unpatentable, our determination there is repeated with respect to claims 14-
16. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 14-16 are reversed.
Appeal 2011-003330
Application 11/046,523

8
Obviousness – Claims 3, 4, and 17-19.
Claims 3, 4, and 17-19 are directly or ultimately dependent upon
either independent claim 1 or independent 14 - both of which have been
determined to be not unpatentable for the reasons expressed above.
Accordingly the rejections of these dependent claims are also reversed.
Fine, supra. The Examiner does not cite Nakajima, Mayor or Ahearn for
any teaching which might remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings
of Doyle, Morand and Kinoshita.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3-19 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED

hh