Ex Parte Reidt

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2019

14417804 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/417,804 01/28/2015
95683 7590 03/19/2019
Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Georg Reidt
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.
814758 8219
EXAMINER
OSIFADE, IDOWU 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2019 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORG REIDT
Appeal2017-006399
Application 14/417 ,804
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9-11, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claim 8 was canceled previously. Oral
arguments were heard on February 13, 2019. A transcript ("Tr.") of the
hearing was placed in the record. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-006399
Application 14/417,804
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention generally "relates to a
switching apparatus having a switching device and a radio module." Spec.
,r 2. More specifically, Appellant's invention relates to a switching
apparatus having a radio module that, when "in the physically deactivated
state, is switched off so as to be incapable of wirelessly conveying
information about the switching device." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x,
claim 1 ). Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A switching apparatus, comprising:
a control cabinet that includes a control cabinet housing;
a switching device disposed within the control cabinet
housing; and
a radio module disposed on the control cabinet housing,
the radio module including a manual operating element disposed
thereon, the manual operating element being configured to be
switchable between a first position to place the radio module in
a physically deactivated state and a second position to place the
radio module into an active operating state; and
a cable connection connecting the switching device to the
radio module, the cable connection being configured to exchange
information between the switching device and the radio module,
wherein the radio module, in the active operating state, is
configured to wirelessly convey an operating state of the
switching device,
wherein the radio module, in the physically deactivated
state, is switched off so as to be incapable of wirelessly
conveying information about the switching device, and
wherein the manual operating element is configured to be
switchable between the first position and the second position
from outside the control cabinet housing.
2
Appeal2017-006399
Application 14/417,804
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Paryani (US 2009/0023389 Al; Jan. 22, 2009), Recker
(US 2012/0080944 Al; Apr. 5, 2012), and Hamada (US 2005/0020207 Al;
Jan. 27, 2005). Final Act. 5-12.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 generally recites a switching apparatus with a switching
device in a cabinet, a radio module with "a manual operating element" that
can switch the radio module between a physically deactivated state and an
active operating state, and a cable that connects the switching device and the
radio module. The claim further recites that the radio module (1) "is
configured to wirelessly convey an operating state of the switching device"
when in the active operating state and (2) "is switched off so as to be
incapable of wirelessly conveying information about the switching device"
when in the physically deactivated state.
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious in view of
Paryani, Recker, and Hamada. Final Act. 5-9. Of particular relevance to
Appellant's argument, the Examiner finds Hamada teaches or suggests the
recited "physically deactivated state," in which the radio module "is
switched off so as to be incapable of wirelessly conveying information about
the switching device." Final Act. 7-9 (citing Hamada ,r,r 56, 60, 81, 116,
Figs. 1, 7-8). The Examiner finds the Specification discloses the ability to
switch the radio module off "by means of programming technology" and
Hamada teaches or suggests CPU 51 controlling whether or not wireless
3
Appeal2017-006399
Application 14/417,804
headphones 2 transmit a message. Ans. 4--5 ( quoting Spec. ,r 1 O; 1 Hamada
,r 116, Figs. 3, 8). The Examiner alternatively finds an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have understood that switching off a wireless device would
result in the device not containing any conductive loops. Ans. 5. Thus, the
Examiner finds it would "be required for a wireless device that is switched
off to be incapable of wirelessly conveying information, in general," and
Hamada teaches a device having "an OFF state in which it is incapable of
wirelessly conveying information about the switching device as claimed."
Ans. 5.
Appellant argues Ramada's flowchart in Figure 8 and the
accompanying description merely describe a process for establishing a
connection between master and peripheral devices in response to
determining whether connection acceptance flag 86 ( or button 53) is in an
ON state. App. Br. 8-11 ( citing Hamada ,r,r 81, 116, Figs. 7-8); Reply Br. 2.
Appellant argues that, regardless of whether connection acceptance flag 86
is turned on, Hamada transmits an inquiry response packet from wireless
headphones 2 to storage server 1. Reply Br. 2--4 (citing Hamada ,r 112,
Fig. 8). Appellant argues these portions of Hamada do not teach or suggest
a radio module that is incapable of wirelessly conveying information while
in the physically deactivated state. App. Br. 9-11. Appellant does not
respond to the Examiner's alternative finding on page 5 of the Answer "that
a wireless device that is switched off is a device that doesn't contain any
conductive loops (when switched off)."
1 The Examiner cites paragraph 12 of the printed publication. The quoted
text is in paragraph 10 of the Specification.
4
Appeal2017-006399
Application 14/417,804
Although the Specification does not define "physical deactivation" or
what it means to be "incapable of wirelessly conveying information," it does
provide some guidance. "[P]hysical deactivation should be taken to mean
that the radio module is switched off, for example by means of a mechanical
or galvanic interruption of a suitable power line." Spec. ,r 10. "A switching
of the radio module by means of programming technology is also feasible,
for example by setting a bit/control pin provided for the purpose, as a result
of which an internal switch of the radio module suitable for deactivating the
radio module is operated." Spec. ,r 10. "If the radio module is switched off
in this manner there is no possibility of receiving information about the
switching device via the radio module." Spec. ,r 10. The Specification
further discloses that "[a]n additional advantage of being able to physically
deactivate the radio module is that the energy consumption of the switching
apparatus can be reduced by deactivating the radio module." Spec. ,r 13
( emphasis added).
Thus, the Specification distinguishes between a "physical
deactivation" and a switching mechanism using "programming technology."
See Spec. ,r,r 10, 12. Although the physical deactivation is not limited to the
exemplary disclosure of a means of mechanical or galvanic interruption of
power, it provides context from which it is clear that a "physical
deactivation" is distinct from a programming technology for switching the
radio module on or off. See Spec. ,r 10. In either embodiment, the
Specification suggests switching the radio module off precludes receiving
information from the radio module. See Spec. ,r 10.
5
Appeal2017-006399
Application 14/417,804
To the extent Appellant argues claim 1 encompasses the
"programming technology" switching embodiment, see Tr. 12-13,2 we
disagree. The Specification distinguishes between the two embodiments.
Spec. ,r 10. On this record, we construe claim l's recitation ofa "plac[ing]
the radio module in a physically deactivated state" to be distinct from a
method of switching the radio module off using "programming technology."
Rather, placing the radio module in a physical deactivated state requires
removing, or not supplying, power to the radio module, such as,/or example
a galvanic or mechanical interruption of the radio module's power line.
However, we agree with the Examiner that a wireless device that is
switched off would have no active conductive loops and, therefore, would
"be incapable of wirelessly conveying information about the switching
device as claimed." Ans. 5. The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is based on
a combination of Paryani, Recker, and Hamada. See Final Act. 5-9. The
Examiner finds Paryani teaches or suggests a manual operating element
"configured to be switchable between the first position and the second
position." Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds Hamada teaches "the manual
2 As discussed at oral argument, Tr. 6-11, we see no difference between
Appellant's disclosed switching method using programming technology and
Ramada's disclosure in Figure 7 (steps S7-S13) and paragraphs 87-98.
Specifically, Hamada discloses that, if "the connection response button 53
has not been depressed, in step S8, ... the process returns to step S4 and the
process thereafter is repeated." Hamada ,r 89. However, "when it is
determined that the connection response button 53 has been depressed, in
step S9, the CPU 51 generates an inquiry response command and outputs the
inquiry response command to the radio module 54," and "[i]n step S 10, the
radio module 54 generates an inquiry response packet ... and transmits the
inquiry response packet to the wireless storage server." Hamada ,r,r 90-91.
Accordingly, "the response to the inquiry signal is sent only when the user of
the wireless headphones 2 wishes." Hamada ,r 98 ( emphasis added).
6
Appeal2017-006399
Application 14/417,804
operating element being configured to be switchable between a first position
to place the module in a physical deactivated state and a second position"
and the radio module is incapable of wirelessly conveying information when
in a physically deactivated state. Final Act. 7-9. Thus, the Examiner relies
on the combined disclosures of Hamada and Paryani to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. The Examiner also provides an uncontested rationale
for combining Ramada's cited teachings with Paryani's and Reeker's cited
teachings. Final Act. 9.
Thus, Appellant does not contest either the Examiner's alternative
finding that a wireless device that is switched off has no conductive loops
and, therefore is incapable of wirelessly conveying information or the
Examiner's rationale for combining Paryani's, Reeker's, and Ramada's cited
teachings. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 or claims 2-7 and 9-11, not argued separately with
particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7