Ex Parte Borkholder et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201913838492 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation