Ex Parte Ren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 19, 2017

14138741 (P.T.A.B. May. 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. 14/138,741 12/23/2013 Xin Ren 20130795 8460 7590 05/23/201725537 VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 EXAMINER BLACK-CHILDRESS, RAJSHEED O ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2017 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): patents @ verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIN REN, YUK LUN LI, and JEREMY NACER Appeal 2017-003471 Application 14/138,741 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verizon Communications Inc. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2017-003471 Application 14/138,741 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to detecting and storing liquid ingress events in electronic devices (Spec. 116). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: synchronously collecting temperature data and moisture data from at least one sensor unit coupled to an electronic device susceptible to liquid damage; determining, by a processor, a rate of change of each of the temperature data and the moisture data to form respective temperature change rate data and moisture change rate data; comparing, by the processor, each of the temperature change rate data and the moisture change rate data to at least one predetermined liquid ingress condition; identifying, by the processor, a liquid ingress event when at least one of the temperature change rate data or the moisture change rate data matches the at least one predetermined liquid ingress condition; and storing an indication of the identified liquid ingress event. Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tupman et al. (US 2008/0204218 Al; published Aug. 28, 2008) (“Tupman”) and Ando et al. (US 2004/0004546 Al; published Jan. 8, 2004) (“Ando”). ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 1. Combined Teachings of Tupman and Ando Appellants contend Tupman’s moisture sensitive tab fails to teach collecting moisture data, and, thus, the combination of Tupman and Ando 2 Appeal 2017-003471 Application 14/138,741 fails to teach or suggest synchronously collecting temperature data and moisture data from at least one sensor unit coupled to an electronic device susceptible to liquid damage, as recited in independent claim 1 (see App. Br. 8-9 ; see also Reply Br. 2—5). This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Tupman teaches a sensor including multiple sensing devices that concurrently detect changes in multiple parameters associated with multiple physical occurrences, where the sensed physical occurrences include temperature and moisture (see Ans. 2—3 (citing Tupman 26, 31; claims 12, 24; Fig. 1)). Thus, Tupman does teach or suggest synchronously collecting temperature data and moisture data as recited in the independent claims. Appellants further contend Tupman does not teach or suggest determining moisture change rate data because Tupman fails to teach synchronously collecting moisture data (see App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5—6). According to Appellants, Ando fails to teach or suggest collecting moisture data, and thus, Ando also does not teach or suggest determining temperature change rate data and moisture change rate data (see App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 7). This argument is also not persuasive because it is based on the underlying arguments that neither Tupman nor Ando teaches or suggests determining moisture change rate data. However, the Examiner relied upon Tupman for teaching collecting moisture data and further relied upon Ando for determining change rate data of an identified parameter (e.g., temperature) (see Ans. 4 (citing Ando 1 60)). Thus, Appellants’ argument attacks Tupman and Ando individually, rather than the combination of references. It is well established that one cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based 3 Appeal 2017-003471 Application 14/138,741 upon the teachings of a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because it does not address the actual reasoning of the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants also contend Tupman merely discloses that event data relates to differences between parameter threshold values and Tupman fails to teach or suggest comparing each of the temperature change rate data and the moisture change rate data to at least one predetermined liquid ingress condition (see App. Br. 11—12; see also Reply Br. 5—6). This argument is also not persuasive. Again, Appellants’ argument attacks Tupman and Ando individually, rather than the combination of references. We agree with the Examiner that Tupman teaches comparing multiple parameter values associated with multiple physical occurrences with a parameter threshold (see Ans. 8) and that Ando teaches determining change rate data of an identified parameter (e.g., temperature) (see id.). Thus, we also agree that the combination of the cited references teaches comparing each of the temperature change rate data and the moisture change rate data to at least one predetermined liquid ingress condition. 2. Rationale to Combine the References Appellants contend the Examiner is selectively applying elements from Tupman and Ando in an attempt to improperly reconstruct the claimed invention based on improper hindsight (see App. Br. 12—13). Appellants further contend the Examiner’s alleged motivation for combining the references is merely a conclusory statement providing alleged benefits of the combination that do not necessarily follow from the combination (see App. Br. 14—15). 4 Appeal 2017-003471 Application 14/138,741 This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Tupman teaches all of the limitations of the independent claims, except using a rate of change of an environmental parameter representing an environmental condition, rather than the parameter value itself (see Ans. 9). We further agree with the Examiner that Ando teaches using a change of a rate of an environmental parameter (see id.), and that the motivation to combine the references can be found in Tupman itself, as Tupman explicitly discloses determining that a parameter value exceeds a parameter threshold for at least a duration of time, which suggests using change of rate data (see Final Act. 4 (citing Tupman || 26, 27; Fig. 2)). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claims 8 and 15, which are argued based on similar reasons as those presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 18—19), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tupman and Ando. Claim 2 Appellants contend Tupman discloses placing a sensor in a “sleep mode” and reactivating the sensor in order to record event data that surpasses a threshold value (see App. Br. 15—16). Appellants argue Tupman’s reactivation of the sensor does not teach or suggest collecting the temperature data and the moisture data periodically over a predetermined duty cycle, as recited in claim 2 (App. Br. 16). This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Tupman teaches performing a collection of environmental parameter data whenever a parameter value exceeds a threshold value (see Ans. 11). We further agree it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to periodically collect the parameter 5 Appeal 2017-003471 Application 14/138,741 data over a predetermined period of time, as opposed to when a parameter value exceeds a threshold value (see Ans. 11—12), because such a modification was well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tupman and Ando. Claim 3 Appellants contend Tupman merely discloses reactivating a sensor when a monitored temperature reaches a threshold, and fails to teach or suggest collecting additional sensor data, the additional sensor data including at least one of additional temperature data, barometric pressure data or inertial sensor data, much less one of identifying the liquid ingress event or activating collection of the temperature data and the moisture data responsive to the collected additional sensor data, as recited in claim 3 (see App Br. 16—17). This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Tupman teaches multiple sensing devices, including temperature sensors, pressure sensors, accelerometers, and other commercially available sensors, where the multiple sensors concurrently detect changes in multiple parameters associated with multiple physical occurrences (see Ans. 12 (citing Tupman || 24, 26, 31)). Thus, Tupman does teach collecting additional sensor data, the additional sensor data including at least one of 6 Appeal 2017-003471 Application 14/138,741 additional temperature data, barometric pressure data or inertial sensor data, and identifying the liquid ingress event or activating collection of the temperature data and the moisture data responsive to the collected additional sensor data, as recited in claim 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tupman and Ando. Remaining Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims (see App. Br. 15, 18—19). We therefore sustain their rejections for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). AFFIRMED 7