Ex Parte Meyer

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2014

11557001 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/557,001 11/06/2006 Randall T. Meyer 2141.000300/TDM 9736 23720 7590 03/28/2014 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON 10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100 HOUSTON, TX 77042 EXAMINER YANG, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2014 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 RANDALL T. MEYER ____________ Appeal 2011-009510 Application 11/557,001 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009510 Application 11/557,001 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-21. Claims 7 and 16 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to “a monitoring system for indicating when water temperature falls below a predetermined sanitary temperature” (Spec. 2:8-9). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for monitoring water temperature, comprising: activating an alarm in response to sensing a temperature of water falling below a preselected temperature sufficient to sanitize objects immersed in the water so that immersing objects in the water for at least one half minute does not sanitize surfaces of the object. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Lüssi Fima US 5,408,917 US 6,766,835 B1 Apr. 25, 1995 July 27, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lüssi. Appeal 2011-009510 Application 11/557,001 3 Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lüssi and Fima. ANALYSIS Claims 1-4, 11-13, 20, and 21 Appellant contends Lüssi does not suggest activating an alarm (Br. 6- 7). Appellant also contends Lüssi does not suggest activating any part of the output unit, which the Examiner alleges discloses an alarm, in response to detecting a temperature of water falling below a preselected temperature (Br. 7). Appellant further contends the set temperatures which Lüssi detects— 90°C (194°F) and 130°C (266°F)—are significantly above the temperature below which objects immersed in water are not sanitized after one half minute (Id.). Additionally, Appellant contends Lüssi teaches away from providing an alarm when water temperature falls below a preselected temperature, specifically, a temperature below which objects immersed in water are not sanitized after one half minute (Br. 9-10). We disagree with Appellant. Appellant’s Specification broadly defines an alarm as including a visual alarm (Spec. 7:1-2). Lüssi’s system includes an “LC display” which indicates “malfunction, operational functions, readiness or non-readiness, etc.” of the system (Lüssi, col. 7, ll. 21-26). We agree with the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of “alarm” as encompassing a visual display such as Lüssi’s LC display (Ans. 4, 16). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that the indication of “readiness or non-readiness” on Lüssi’s LC display is in response to Appeal 2011-009510 Application 11/557,001 4 detection of a temperature (Ans. 4, 16). Specifically, Lüssi discloses the following: Let us assume that in switching on the coffee machine the hot water tanks already contain water, which has to be heated up. It can be seen from the flow chart in FIG. 3a that, because the question of whether the coffee water temperature is less than the set value can be answered affirmatively, the heating element of the first hot water tank receives the maximum possible distribution of power. (Lüssi, col. 7, ll. 30-37). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in the case where the coffee water is below a set temperature, which triggers a distribution of power to the heating element for the coffee water as quoted above, Lüssi’s display would indicate the “non-readiness” operational condition for the coffee water (see Lüssi, col. 7, ll. 21-26). Regarding Appellant’s argument that Lüssi’s set temperatures are significantly above the recited “preselected temperature sufficient to sanitize objects immersed in the water so that immersing objects in the water for at least one half minute does not sanitize surfaces of the object” (Br. 7), we note that the value of the preselected temperature is merely non-functional descriptive material. That is, the claim 1 step of “activating an alarm in response to sensing a temperature of water falling below a preselected temperature” is not functionally dependent on the value of the preselected temperature. In other words, the temperature of the water does not change how the alarm is activated. Based on the presence of non-functional descriptive material in claim 1, we do not give patentable weight to the value of the preselected temperature. Lüssi discloses an alarm—i.e., a visual display indicating, for example, “non-readiness”—in response to water temperature falling below a Appeal 2011-009510 Application 11/557,001 5 preselected temperature, for instance, 90°C (194°F) (see Lüssi, col. 4, l. 63- col. 5, l. 9; col. 7, ll. 21-26 and 30-37). Therefore, we find Lüssi discloses “activating an alarm in response to sensing a temperature of water falling below a preselected temperature,” as recited in claim 1. Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Lüssi teaches away from providing an alarm when water temperature falls below a preselected temperature (Br. 9-10), because as just discussed, we find Lüssi discloses this feature. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-4 not specifically argued separately. Although claims 11-13, 20, and 21 are argued separately from claims 1-4, the arguments presented are similar to those addressed here (see Br. 10-16). Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 11-13, 20, and 21 for the reasons discussed above. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 Regarding claim 5, Appellant contends “Lussi [sic] teaches away from providing a warning signal (such as described in Fima) in response to the water temperature falling below a selected temperature” (Br. 18). Appellant also contends “Fima teaches away from providing a warning signal in response to the water temperature falling below a selected temperature. Fima is only concerned with the problem of preventing a water temperature from rising above a selected temperature.” (Br. 18). We disagree with Appellant. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Lüssi teaches an alarm in response to detecting a water temperature falling below a Appeal 2011-009510 Application 11/557,001 6 preselected temperature, and thus, Lüssi does not teach away from this feature. Further, both Lüssi and Fima relate to providing an alarm in response to detecting a water temperature, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered using an alarm disclosed in Fima in Lüssi’s system. The fact that Fima’s alarm is in response to water rising above a certain temperature does not teach away from using Fima’s alarm in Lüssi’s system. Rather, Lüssi discloses indicating the “readiness or non-readiness” of certain water (Lüssi, col. 7, ll. 21-26), and thus, suggests providing an alarm when water falls below or rises above a preselected temperature. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5, and claim 14 not specifically argued separately. Although claims 6 and 15 are argued separately from claims 5 and 14, the arguments presented are similar to those addressed here (see Br. 19-21). We therefore also sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 15 for the reasons discussed above. Claims 8-10 and 17-19 Appellant’s contentions regarding claims 8-10 relate to the value of the “preselected temperature” recited in claim 1 (see Br. 21-26). As discussed above, the value of the preselected temperature is non-functional descriptive material that we do not give patentable weight. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-10, and claims 17-19, not specifically argued separately. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2011-009510 Application 11/557,001 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-21 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED rwk