Ex Parte Milne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2017

14333006 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 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.
14/333,006 07/16/2014 James R. Milne 201405297.01 7947
36738 7590 12/06/2017
ROrTTT7 fr ASSOPTATRS
EXAMINER
4420 Hotel Circle Court NGUYEN, HUNG T
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2017 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
John@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES R. MILNE, GREGORY PETER CARLS SON, and
FREDERICK J. ZUSTAK
Appeal 2017-001106
Application 14/333,006
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—7, which constitute all claims pending in this application.1 Claims
App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sony Corp., App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001106
Application 14/333,006
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to the
application of a mesh network (50) to a pet carrier (52) associated with a
node module (54) including a location sensor, a wireless transmitter, and a
processor. Spec. 1, 5, 8—9, Fig. 3. In particular, the processor uses
information from the wireless transmitter to determine whether a network
access point (66) is available so as to communicate with a user device (70)
through the Internet (68). Id. at 11. Upon confirming that the access point is
available, the processor sends a location signal to the user device via the
Internet. Id.
50
________
Pet
carrier
M
2/3
r52
Kennel
FIG. 3
Figure 3 shows an example of a mesh network with a pet carrier associated
with a node module.
2
Appeal 2017-001106
Application 14/333,006
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a pet carrier defining an enclosure openable to load and unload an
animal into the enclosure and closable to maintain the animal securely
within the enclosure, the enclosure having one or more ventilation openings
into the enclosure when the enclosure is closed;
at least one location sensor engaged with the pet carrier;
at least one wireless transmitter supported by the pet carrier;
at least one computer readable storage medium bearing instructions
executable by a processor; and
at least one processor supported by the pet carrier and configured to
receive signals from the location sensor, the processor also being configured
for accessing the computer readable storage medium to execute the
instructions to configure the processor to:
determine, using information from the transmitter, whether
communication with a network through at least one network access point is
available; and
responsive to a determination that communication with the network
through at least one network access point is available, automatically send at
least one of the location signals to the network.
Prior Art References
Pomakoy-Poole et al.
Hokuf et al.
Furth
Locker et al.
Apte et al.
US 2005/0284405 Al Dec. 29, 2005
US 2008/0036610 Al Feb. 14, 2008
US 2011/0005466 Al Jan. 13, 2011
US 7,916,025 B2 Mar. 29,2011
US 2014/0023060 Al Jan. 23, 2014
3
Appeal 2017-001106
Application 14/333,006
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Furth and Locker. Final Act. 3—10.2
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Furth, Locker, and Apte. Final Act. 11.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Furth, Locker, and Pomakoy-Poole. Final Act. 11—
13. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Furth, Locker, and Hokuf. Final Act. 13—15.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Furth and Locker does not
teach or suggest automatically sending a location signal to a network in
response to determining that communication with the network is possible
through an available network access point using information from a
transmitter, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 3^4. In particular,
Appellants argue that Locker discloses a luggage tag that returns GPS
coordinates only in response to receiving an interrogation signal from a
receiver, as opposed automatically sending a location signal in response to
determining that the network access point is available. Id. at 4 (citing
Locker 7:64—8:25).
Appellants’ argument is persuasive. At the outset, we note the
disputed claim limitation requires using information from a transmitter in a
pet carrier to determine whether a network access point is available for
2 Claims 8—27 have been canceled as per the communication filed March 16,
2016.
4
Appeal 2017-001106
Application 14/333,006
subsequent communication therewith. Locker discloses a luggage tag that
communicates with a receiver via a ZigBee or Bluetooth network. Locker
4:43—49. Upon detecting that the tag is within range, the receiver
interrogates the tag. Locker 5:33—6:34, 7:3—47. In response, the tag can
provide to the receiver GPS coordinates indicating the location and travel
path of the luggage. Id. at 7:57—8:25. Id. We agree with Appellants that the
tag disclosed in Locker does not “determine . . . whether communication
with a network through at least one network access point is available”
because the disclosed tag communicates only with the handheld interface,
not with a network, and the handheld interface is not a network access point.
The disclosed tag provides location signals only in response to being
interrogated by the receiver. Even assuming that the tag’s receipt of
interrogation signals taught “determin[ing] . . . whether communication with
a network through at least one network access point is available,” Locker
still would not teach “automatically send at least one of the location signals”
because the disclosed tag sends location signals only in response to a request
for those signals, not “automatically.”
Thus, even if Locker’s tag were incorporated in Furth’s pet detector,
the combination would fail to teach a transmitter that determines an
available network access point or that automatically sends location signal to
the receiver. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1, as
well as the obviousness rejection of claims 2—7, which also suffer the
deficiencies noted above.
5
Appeal 2017-001106
Application 14/333,006
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1—7.
REVERSED
6