Ex Parte Sloo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2018

14508485 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/508,485 10/07/2014 125802 7590 09/27/2018 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Google LLC - Nest Labs, Inc. Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Sloo 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. 94021-914970 9081 EXAMINER ALAM, MIRZA F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2018 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com googlepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID SLOO, JESSE W. BOETTCHER, MAXIME VERON, and SOPHIE LE GUEN Appeal2018-000218 Application 14/508,485 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-000218 Application 14/508,485 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to smart-home hazard detection system providing context-based user notifications. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for customizing hazard notifications based on user activity, the system comprising: a plurality of motion detecting modules, each motion detecting module being configured to: detect activity based on one or more users moving, generate activity data indicating the detection of the activity, the activity data indicative of the one or more users moving, and transmit the activity data to a computer server system; a hazard detector configured to: detect a hazard level that is greater than a threshold setting, the hazard level indicating an amount of at least one of smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) present at the hazard detector, generate hazard data indicating the detection of the hazard level, and transmit the hazard data to the computer server system; and the computer server system being communicatively coupled to the plurality of motion detecting modules and the hazard detector, the computer server system being configured to: associate an activity location with each of the plurality of motion detecting modules, the activity location indicating a location of an associated motion detecting module within an enclosure, 2 Appeal2018-000218 Application 14/508,485 receive a first activity data indicative of the one or more users moving as detected by a motion detecting module of the plurality of motion detecting modules, identify a first motion detecting module that transmitted the first activity data, determine a first activity location associated with the first motion detecting module, receive the hazard data, and generate a hazard notification in response to receiving the hazard data, wherein the hazard notification indicates the first activity location and the hazard, and the first activity location is distinct from a location of the hazard. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wedig Belinsky US 2015/0015401 Al US 2015/0077737 Al REJECTION Jan. 15,2015 Mar. 19, 2015 Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky in view of W edig. OPINION Appellants argue that the combination of Belinsky and W edig does not teach or suggest the limitation "generate a hazard notification in response to receiving the hazard data, wherein the hazard notification indicates the first activity location and the hazard, and the first activity location is distinct from a location of the hazard," as recited in claim 1. 3 Appeal2018-000218 Application 14/508,485 App. Br. 5---6. Appellants further argue that although Wedig discloses occupancy units that can detect occupancy, at no point is this occupancy used to adjust a setting of the hazard detector, such as volume or a threshold setting level, as required by claim 6. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants finally argue that the combination does not teach or suggest the limitation "receive activity data indicating a user location of a user and an identity of the user, ... generate a notification in response to receiving the hazard data, the notification indicating the hazard location, the identity of the user, and the user location," as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner describes different paragraphs in Belinsky and W edig but does not address the above disputed limitations, nor does the Examiner explain the rationale for the modifications to arrive to the disputed limitations. Ans. 3-8. We cannot determine from the record before us how the Examiner's findings address the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings that Belinsky and Wedig teach the disputed limitations are in error because they are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner's burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis."). Based on the record before us we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 and for the similar reasons the rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20. 4 Appeal2018-000218 Application 14/508,485 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 5