Ex Parte Palashewski et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 2019

14675355 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/675,355 03/31/2015 26191 7590 05/30/2019 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wade Daniel Palashewski 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 39870-0082001 1087 EXAMINER AZAD, MD ABUL K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2119 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2019 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): P ATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte WADE DANIEL PALASHEWSKI, ROBERT ERKO, ROBERT NUNN, and GORDAN REDZIC Appeal2017-008567 Application 14/675,355 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-22, and 26-29. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We heard the appeal on April 17, 2019. Claims 1-6, 14-16, 20, 21, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Petrovski et al. (US 2011/0115635 Al; May 19, 2011) and Dothie et al. (US 2011/0015495 Al; Jan. 20, 2011). Final Act. 4-23. Claims 7, 8, 10-13, 17-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Petrovski, Dothie, and Oakhill (US 2011/0224510 A 1; Sept. 15, 2011). Final Act. 23-34. We reverse. Appeal2017-008567 Application 14/675,355 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "bed systems including a data processing device." Spec. 1:2-3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention, and reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A system comprising: a mattress; a sensor configured to: sense a feature of the mattress; and transmit readings to a data processing device; and the data processing device comprising a processor and configured to: receive the readings from the sensor; determine if the readings i) indicate a user presence on the mattress and ii) indicate the user intends to sleep by comparing the user presence on the mattress with time windows of expected user going to bed events in a model of the user's sleep; and responsive to determining that the readings i) indicate user presence on the mattress and ii) indicate the user intends to sleep, transmit a command to a peripheral controller to modify the state of a peripheral device. PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 2 Appeal2017-008567 Application 14/675,355 ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-6, 14-16, 20, 21, AND 26-29 OVER PETROVSKI AND DOTHIE Contentions The Examiner finds Petrovski and Dothie teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4-7; see also Ans. 37-41. The Examiner finds Petrovski teaches all limitations of claim 1, except for the recited "indicate the user intends to sleep" and "transmit a command to a peripheral controller to modify the state of a peripheral device." See Final Act. 4-6. The Examiner finds Dothie teaches these limitations. See Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to modify Petrovski in order to "improv[e] the quality of consumers' sleep." Final Act. 7 (citing Dothie ~ 3). In particular, the Examiner cites to Petrovski paragraph 99 for teaching "indicate a user presence on the mattress" as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner cites to Dothie paragraphs 65, 99 for teaching "indicate the user intends to sleep" as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner cites to Petrovski paragraph 95 for teaching "by comparing the user presence on the mattress with time windows of expected user going to bed events in a model of the user's sleep" as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5-6. Appellants present the following principal argument: "The claim is directed to a data processing device that checks to see if an event ('user presence on the mattress') happens at expected time windows ('time windows of expected user going to bed events')." App. Br. 7. "Instead of describing time windows, Petrovski describes only creating a 3 Appeal2017-008567 Application 14/675,355 schedule based on 'the time,' to be operated 'according to a predetermined schedule or protocol."' App. Br. 7 ( citing Petrovski ,i 95); see also App. Br. 8 ("Petrovski does not compare user presence with time at all, let alone comparing user presence with time windows. Instead, Petrovski uses a 'predetermined schedule,' and operates according to that predetermined schedule."). Regarding Dothie, Appellants further argue the following: [U]nder the Examiner's proposed combination of Petrovski and Dothie, intent to sleep is determined according to "parameters related to movement of the user and/or electrical signals indicative of brain activity of the user" ([ Ans. 6-7] ( emphasis added) )-not "by comparing the user presence on the mattress with time windows" as claimed. Reply Br. 3 ( citing Ans. 6-7 ( citing Dothie ,i,i 65, 95)). Our Review Petrovski discloses "[a] climate-conditioned bed." Petrovski, Abstract. Petrovski further discloses "one or more occupant sensors ( e.g., pressure sensors) to accurately detect the presence of an occupant positioned thereon." Petrovski ,i 99. Thus, Petrovski teaches a climate control system that responds to input from an occupant sensor, and the occupant sensor indicates a user presence on the mattress. Petrovski further discloses "the various components of a climate controlled bed can be operated according to a predetermined schedule or protocol." Petrovski ,i 95. Thus, Petrovski teaches a climate control system that operates according to a predetermined schedule. Petrovski' s predetermined schedule does describe a time window of expected user going to bed events. However, claim 1 recites "comparing the user presence on the mattress with time windows of expected user going to 4 Appeal2017-008567 Application 14/675,355 bed events in a model of the user's sleep." We agree with Appellants that Petrovski's predetermined schedule does not describe a comparison with the user presence or occupant sensor output. See App. Br. 7-8. The predetermined schedule in Petrovski described at paragraph 95 determines when the components of the climate-controlled bed are operated, and we do not see a comparison of the user presence on the mattress when operating according to the predetermined schedule. See Petrovski ,-J 95. On the other hand, we recognize that Petrovski does describe changing the heating or cooling effect following a time period after the occupant sensor detects the occupant. See Petrovski ,-J 99. However, this time period is not a window of expected user going to bed events in a model of the user's sleep, and we still do not see a comparison of the user presence on the mattress as determined by the occupant sensor with the predetermined schedule. See Petrovski ,-J 99. The Examiner's reliance on Dothie does not cure this deficiency. Dothie discloses "monitoring, using at least one sensor, one or more objective parameters relevant to sleep quality of the user when in bed." Dothie ,-J 65; see also Dothie ,-J 95. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Dothie also does not describe the claimed comparison. See Reply Br. 3. For reasons explained above, Petrovski and Dothie do not teach the key disputed limitations. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2-6 and 26, which depend from claim 1. Independent claim 14 recites the same key disputed limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14, or of claims 15, 16, and 29, which depend from claim 14. 5 Appeal2017-008567 Application 14/675,355 Independent claim 20 recites the same key disputed limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20, or of claim 21, which depends from claim 20. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7, 8, 10-13, 17-19, AND 22 OVER PETROVSKI, DOTHIE, AND OAKHILL The Examiner does not find Oakhill cures the deficiencies of Petrovski and Dothie discussed above. See Final Act. 23-34, Ans. 36-41. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8, 10-13, 17-19, and 22. DECISON The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-22, and 26-29 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a)( 1 ). REVERSED 6