Ex Parte Basir et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 1, 201311046523 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation