Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2017

13308029 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2017)

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.
13/308,029 11/30/2011 Christopher D. Martin H0028734/4874/114672 8871
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
BROWN JR, HOWARD D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
amy. hammer @ hu schblackwell .com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER D. MARTIN and KEVIN G. PIEL
Appeal 2016-005530
Application 13/308,0291
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—16, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005530
Application 13/308,029
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to “systems and
methods which enable a first person to automatically initiate video
communications with a second, displaced person to provide feedback as to
status of the first person.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a regional monitoring system which includes a camera
having a selected field of view; and
control circuits carried by the system, and responsive to a
locally generated manual input from an input/output port of the
regional monitoring system that disarms the regional monitoring
system, the control circuits automatically initiate a wireless
communication from the input/output port to a communications
device at a displaced location and transmits video from the
camera to the communication device for display on the
communication device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Yukawa US 2006/0022816 A1 Feb. 2,2006
Howarter et al. US 2008/0129498 A1 June 5, 2008
Cheng et al. US 2011/0267462 Al Nov. 3, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Howarter. Final Act. 3—8.
Claim 16 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Howarter in view of Yukawa. Final Act. 8—10.
2
Appeal 2016-005530
Application 13/308,029
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments with respect to the pending claims,
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3—10), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 9—10). We
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend that neither Cheng nor Howarter teach or suggest
the control circuits recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7. However, Appellants
merely quote the claim language and make a naked assertion that the prior
art does not teach the limitation. That is insufficient to raise an argument
that the Examiner erred. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants fail to provide sufficient,
persuasive argument or evidence regarding the specific deficiency of
references with respect to the disputed limitation of claim 1.
Moreover, Appellants’ contention was directed to the whether the
references individually teach or suggest the claimed control circuits. App.
Br. 7. However, the Examiner’s findings were based on the combined
teachings of Cheng and Howarter. Final Act. 3^4. Nonobviousness cannot
be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co.,
3
Appeal 2016-005530
Application 13/308,029
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not
whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious
to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of
those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants also argue “because none of the cited references are
directed to the problem solved by the claimed invention,” there was no
reason to combine the references. Our reviewing court guides that it is
sufficient that the references suggest doing what Appellants did, although
the Appellants’ particular purpose was different from that of the references.
In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Gershon, 372
F.2d 535, 538—39 (CCPA 1967)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined the Chang and Howarter “to provide additional safety and
security to users of set top boxes and wireless devices.” See Final Act. 4.
Finally, to the extent Appellants raise new arguments in the Reply
Brief, because Appellants did not raise those arguments in the opening brief
and good cause has not been shown why it should be considered, we will not
consider those arguments. 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claim 2—15, which were not separately argued. See
App. Br. 7.
Appellants have not identified any errors in the Examiners findings
regarding claim 16. “If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
4
Appeal 2016-005530
Application 13/308,029
particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board
will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of
the rejection.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 16.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5