Ex Parte FordDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 15, 201411734714 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/734,714 04/12/2007 Michael Brent Ford MBF1000 1567 59911 7590 05/15/2014 MITCH HARRIS, LLC - GENERAL P.O. BOX 7998 ATHENS, GA 30604 EXAMINER BRADFORD, JONATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2014 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 MICHAEL BRENT FORD ____________________ Appeal 2012-002202 Application 11/734,714 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JAMES P. CALVE, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2012-002202 Application 11/734,714 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A system for detecting potentially destructive water leakage conditions in a building, comprising: a humidity detector for detecting a level of humidity inside of said building; a control circuit having an input coupled to said humidity detector and generating a preventative response in conformity with determining that said level of humidity has exceeded a threshold; and at least one motion sensor coupled to said control circuit for providing an indication of human activity within said building, wherein said control circuit ignores said determination that said level of humidity has exceeded a threshold and does not generate the preventative response when said motion sensor indicates that human activity is occurring. REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ford (US 2004/0134545 A1; pub. Jul. 15, 2004), Kates (US 2006/0273896 A1; pub. Dec. 7, 2006), Barker (US 2006/0195569 A1; pub. Aug. 31, 2006), and Sellgren (US 2004/0257656 A1; pub. Dec. 23, 2004). Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ford and Kates, further in view of Barker, Sellgren, and Horne (US 6,612,323 B1; iss. Sep. 2, 2003). Appeal 2012-002202 Application 11/734,714 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-16 as unpatentable over Ford, Kates, Barker, and Sellgren Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 14-16 as a group and presents separate arguments for claims 3, 7, 11, and 15. App. Br. 7-11. We select claim 1 as representative of the group and address Appellant’s arguments for claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 2, 3, 6-11, and 14-16 stand or fall with claim 1. Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 14, and 16 The Examiner found that Ford teaches a system for detecting water leakage conditions in a building, as claimed, except for a humidity detector that detects a level of humidity in the building. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Kates teaches using a humidity sensor to determine when there is excess humidity due to leaks and generating a preventive response when the sensor reading rises above a threshold level. Ans. 5. The Examiner also found that Ford, as modified, lacks a control circuit 30 that ignores a determination that the level of humidity exceeds a threshold and does not generate a preventive response when a motion sensor 22 indicates that human activity is occurring, but Barker teaches a monitoring system that avoids false alarms. Ans. 6. The Examiner found that Barker teaches motion sensing and that it is preferable to ignore or tolerate a condition rather than trigger an alarm. Id. Appellant argues that the motion sensor inputs of Ford do not indicate abnormal conditions but rather whether there is human activity in the house. Reply Br. 3-4; App. Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 merely requires at least one motion sensor coupled to said control circuit for providing an indication of human activity within the building. Ford teaches this feature. See Ford, paras. [0020, 0023]. Appeal 2012-002202 Application 11/734,714 4 Appellant also argues that Ford does not disclose a control system that receives inputs from a humidity detector or a system that uses inputs from a motion sensor and humidity detector and prevents generation of a preventive response when the motion sensor indicates that human activity is occurring. Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner relied on Kates and Barker for these features. See Ans. 5, 11. In particular, the Examiner found that Ford teaches that additional sensors can be used to detect “abnormal conditions” to determine if a valve should be closed to shut off a water supply to a building. Ans. 11 (citing Ford, paras. [0020-0023]). The Examiner also found that Kates teaches the use of a humidity sensor to detect abnormal conditions indicative of a leak and determined that it would have been obvious to include a humidity detector in Ford to provide an extra tool for detecting small leaks. Ans. 11 (citing Kates, para. [0068]). The Examiner found that Barker teaches ignoring an alarm if a detected situation indicates normal, expected circumstances and determined that it would have been obvious to include this feature in Ford to ignore humidity readings that result from normal operation. Ans. 11-12 (citing Barker, para. [0003]). Appellant also argues that there is no indication in Kates that it would be desirable to prevent generation of a preventative response when a motion sensor indicates human activity is occurring because Kates has multiple levels that would be kept even while a building is occupied and humans are active. App. Br. 9. This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner relied on Ford and Barker for this feature. Ans. 5-6. Appellant argues that none of the references disclose the desirability of using the humidity sensor of Kates for anything other than determining the location of potential water leaks and generating various levels of alerts. Appeal 2012-002202 Application 11/734,714 5 Reply. Br. 5-6; App. Br. 10. Appellant also argues that Ford uses a flow meter to detect a leak and close a water valve and there is no disclosure in Ford or Kates that the output of a humidity detector should be used to cut off a water supply to a building, especially when Ford’s flow detector can detect low leak conditions. Reply. Br. 6-7; App. Br. 11. These arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings that Ford teaches that other sensors may be used to detect abnormal conditions, and Kates teaches use of a humidity sensor to detect a water leak. Ans. 5. The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to modify Ford to use a humidity sensor as an additional sensor for detecting abnormal conditions such as water leaks. Ans. 5, 12. Appellant’s arguments amount to individual attacks on the references where the Examiner relied on their combined teachings. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 14-16. Claims 3 and 11 Claims 3 and 11 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, and recite that an electrically controllable valve is closed to disable at least a portion of the water supply to the building. The Examiner found that Ford teaches an electrically controllable valve 21 for disabling the water supply of a building where a control circuit 30 is coupled to the control valve and a preventative response includes closing the valve. Ans. 7. Appellant argues that Ford discloses closing the valve in response to leak detection by a flow meter, but does not disclose that a humidity detector is a suitable leak detection mechanism for controlling a valve to disable at least a portion of a building water supply. App. Br. 11-12. Appellant also argues that none of the references discloses that it would be desirable to use a humidity sensor of Kates for anything other than generating an alert when Appeal 2012-002202 Application 11/734,714 6 an abnormal flow condition is detected rather than for controlling whether a water supply to the building should be cut off. App. Br. 12. Appellant asserts that Barker addresses preventing false alarms by learning normal patterns of motion sensor outputs and there is no suggestion of using a humidity sensor rather than a motion sensor to control the closing of an electrically controllable valve. Id. Appellant’s arguments are a piecemeal attack on the references. Nor do these arguments persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Ford teaches the use of other sensors to detect abnormal conditions such as leaks, Kates teaches the use of a humidity sensor to detect water leaks, and Barker teaches the prevention of false alarms by adaptive learning so that it would have been obvious to use Kates’ humidity sensor in Ford to indicate an abnormal condition such as a water leak and to ignore a situation where the humidity level exceeds a threshold when Ford’s motion sensor senses human activity. Ans. 11-12. We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 11. Claims 7 and 15 Claims 7 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, and recite that the control circuit includes a timing circuit that indicates a calendar position in the current year so that the control circuit adjusts a threshold in conformity with the calendar position. The Examiner found that Ford does not teach this feature, but it is known that humidity levels are higher during the summer months, so that it would have been obvious to provide a timing circuit to indicate a calendar position in a current year and adjust humidity thresholds accordingly to prevent false alarms due to seasonably high humidity levels. Ans. 7-8. Appeal 2012-002202 Application 11/734,714 7 Appellant argues that the variance of humidity does not suggest that a humidity threshold should be changed with a calendar position. App. Br. 14. Appellant also argues that Kates calibrates sensor thresholds by long-term average rather than using a calendar position. Id. These arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that humidity levels change with seasons so that it would have been obvious to adjust the threshold with a calendar position to account for such known changes in humidity levels. We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 15. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 17-20 as unpatentable over Ford, Kates, Barker, Sellgren, and Horne Claims 4 and 5 and claims 12 and 13 depend, respectively, from claims 1 and 9 and recite an appliance current sensor for sensing activation of at least one appliance that uses a portion of the water supply by measuring an electrical current consumed by the at least one appliance. Claim 17 recites a method for detecting destructive water leakage in a building by sensing activation of at least one appliance that can cause an undesirable indication of the water leakage conditions by measuring an electrical current consumed by the appliance. The Examiner found that Horne discloses a system that uses current sensors (electric solenoids 19, 21) connected to a control circuit 11 to allow water to flow into an appliance when it is in use. Ans. 8-9. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use solenoids, as taught by Horne, on the modified system of Ford to open the electronically controlled valve when the appliance is in use. Ans. 9. We agree with Appellant that the electric solenoids 19, 21 of Horne do not measure an electrical current that is consumed by an appliance or sense activation of at least one appliance, as recited in claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 17-20. App. Br. 15-17. Instead, the solenoids are connected to a Appeal 2012-002202 Application 11/734,714 8 timer 13 that supplies an electric current that causes the solenoids to open the inlet valves to the appliance and allow water to flow into the washing machine. Horne, col. 3, ll. 11-26. Even if the solenoids could be considered to sense current that flows through them, the solenoids do not measure an electrical current that is consumed by an appliance or sense activation of an appliance because they only receive current from a timer rather than current that is supplied to an appliance or used to activate an appliance. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 17-20. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-16 and REVERSE the rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § U.S.C. § 103(a). 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-IN-PART mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation