Ex Parte Borkholder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

13838492 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/838,492 03/15/2013 David A. Borkholder
21186 7590 03/04/2019
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3630.00lUS 1 8796
EXAMINER
ROBERTS, HERBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. BORKHOLDER and JEFFREY L. ROGERS 1
Appeal2017-009285
Application 13/838,492
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and GEORGE C.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-20 and 22-27. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below:
1. A system for dynamic mapping of explosive events
within a test environment, the system including:
a plurality of sensor devices to collect measurement data
representing an explosive event including physical
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as BlackBox Biometrics, Inc.
Appeal2017-009285
Application 13/838,492
characteristics of a shock front propagating through air resulting
from the explosive event, each sensor device including:
an environmental sensor to measure at least one
parameter of the shock front generated by the explosive event;
a time synchronization circuit to synchronize time
stamping of the at least one parameter measured by the
environmental sensor; and
a communication interface; and
a data analysis system including a processor and a
memory device, the memory device including instructions that,
when executed by the data analysis system, cause the data
analysis system to:
access the measurement data collected from the
plurality of sensor devices during an explosive event; and
analyze the measurement data to produce a time-
based dynamic visualization of propagation of the shock front
mapped onto a virtual representation of the test environment.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 9-15, 18-20, and 23-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Burkholder et al. (US
2006/0009911 Al, publ. Jan. 12, 2006) ("Burkholder") in view of
Woodall et al. (US 6,870,534 B 1; iss. Mar. 22, 2005) ("Woodall").
2. Claims 4--8, 16, 17, 26, and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Burkholder in view of Woodall
and further in view of Fulton et al. (US 2010/0008515 Al, pub 1. Mar.
22, 2005) ("Fulton").
3. Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Burkholder in view of Woodall and further in view
of Scholte et al. (US 2011/0120222 Al, publ. May 26, 2011)
("Scholte").
2
Appeal2017-009285
Application 13/838,492
Rejections 1-3
ANALYSIS
For purposes of this appeal, we address separately argued claims, and
the remaining claims stand or fall with the argued claims, consistent with 3 7
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017).
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
Appellants' claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we
sustain each of the Examiner's rejections on appeal for the reasons set forth
in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and affirm. We refer to pages
2-17 of the Final Office Action regarding the Examiner's stated position for
Rejection 1. We refer to pages 17-23 of the Final Office Action regarding
the Examiner's stated position for Rejection 2. We refer to pages 24--25 of
the Final Office Action regarding the Examiner's stated position for
Rejection 3. We adopt the findings therein as our own.
It is Appellants' position that the applied art does not teach "a
plurality of sensor devices to collect measurement data representing an
explosive event including physical characteristics of a shock front
propagating through air resulting from the explosive event" for the reasons
set forth on pages 11-15 of the Appeal Brief. Appellants further argue
certain dependent claims on pages 16-25 of the Appeal Brief.
Appellants state that the Examiner takes a position that no
modification of the sensors taught by Burkholder is necessary. Ans. 5---6.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's position is based on Burkholder
suggesting that the seismic sensors is capable of recording a human voice
3
Appeal2017-009285
Application 13/838,492
signal. Appellants argue that this does not demonstrate an ability for the
seismic sensors to "collect measurement data representing an explosive
event including physical characteristics of a shock front propagating through
air resulting from the explosive event", as required by Appellants' claims.
Reply Br. 2. Appellants submit the admissions of the Examiner (e.g., that
Burkholder only discusses sensing seismic data or human voice data (within
certain frequency ranges)) are evidence of the lack of teachings to "collect
measurement data representing an explosive event including physical
characteristics of a shock front propagating through air resulting from the
explosive event", as recited by the claims. Reply Br. 2.
We are unpersuaded by the aforementioned line of argument. The
Examiner is relying upon sensors that record pressure waves traveling
through grounds, but has made a finding that they are also suitable for
recording pressure waves traveling through the air (human voice), based
upon this particular teaching found in Burkholder. Burkholder, ,r [0067].
In the Reply Brief, Appellants place the burden on the Examiner to
show that Burkholder' s sensors ( which the Examiner has found can record
pressure waves traveling through the air) would be capable of recording the
pressure waves representing an explosive event. Reply Br. 2. Appellants
cite no evidence in support of their assertion that Burkholder's sensors would
not be capable of recording pressure waves from an explosion. This line of
argument is unpersuasive in view of the Examiner's finding that
Burkholder's sensors can record pressure waves traveling through the air.
And, for the sake of argument, if any modifications were necessary to the
sensors ofBurkholder----e.g., changes in the frequency response range or the
dynamic response range-such would be obvious to a person of ordinary
4
Appeal2017-009285
Application 13/838,492
skill in the art. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ("the
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill would
employ").
With regard to the arguments pertaining to particular dependent
claims identified on pages 16-25 of the Appeal Brief, we refer to the
Examiner's corresponding stated responses made in the Answer, and are
unpersuaded by these argument for the reasons provided by the Examiner
therein.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1-3.
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5