Ex Parte Ford

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2014

11734714 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2014)

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