Ex Parte Tusvik

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12935916 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/935,916 02/15/2011
29078 7590
CHRISTIAN D, ABEL
Onsagers AS
Munkedamsveien 35
P.O. Box 1813 Vika
Oslo, N-0123
NORWAY
05/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oystein Tusvik
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.
P21287USPC 8513
EXAMINER
SATANOVSKY,ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
post@onsagers.no
christian.abel@onsagers.no
cdabell 14@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OYSTEIN TUSVIK
Appeal2014-008325
Application 12/935,916
Technology Center 2800
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 12, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Safe Innovations AS. (Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-008325
Application 12/935,916
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to monitoring equipment for exposure
to stress. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A process for monitoring an equipment unit, carried out
by a processing device in a monitoring device, the process
compnsmg
reading at least one sensor signal;
determining, on the basis of the at least one sensor signal,
whether the equipment unit has been subjected to an
unacceptable stress;
if the equipment unit has been subjected to an
unacceptable stress, enabling a start-up lock for the equipment
unit and storing lock status information in a memory, the
process further comprising
- determining whether the monitoring device is operating in a
low-power mode or a normal power mode, and
wherein said step of determining whether the equipment unit
has been subjected to an unacceptable stress comprises criteria
that are dependent upon whether the monitoring device is
operating in a low-power mode or a normal power mode, and
wherein, in the low-power mode, one set of sensor signals is
used in determining whether the equipment unit has been
subjected to an unacceptable stress, whilst in a normal power
mode another set of sensor signals is used to determine whether
the equipment unit has been subjected to an unacceptable stress,
and yet further wherein the monitoring device comprises input
circuits, output circuits and a memory connected via at least one
bus and the processing device is configured to execute a set of
processing instructions contained in the memory.
2
Appeal2014-008325
Application 12/935,916
Rejections
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Pasolini et al. (US 7,450,332 B2; Nov. 11, 2008) ("Pasolini"),
Bridges (US 5,631,427; May 20, 1997), and Hem et al. (US 2008/0027586
Al; Jan. 31, 2008) ("Hem"). (Final Act. 2-10.)
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Pasolini, Bridges, Hem, and Hino et al. (US 7,424,611 B2; Sept. 9, 2008)
("Hino"). (Final Act. 10-11.)
Claims 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Pasolini, Bridges, Hem, Hino, and Schwartz et al. (US 4,949 ,084; Aug. 14,
1990) ("Schwartz"). (Final Act. 11-13.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner erred (Br. 6-11). We note Appellant has not filed a
Reply Brief to rebut the findings and conclusions presented in the
Examiner's Answer. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken and as set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer (Ans. 3---6). We highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues Pasolini, Bridges, and Hem do not teach or suggest
in the low-power mode, one set of sensor signals is used in determining
whether the equipment unit has been subjected to an unacceptable stress,
whilst in a normal power mode another set of sensor signals is used to
determine whether the equipment unit has been subjected to an unacceptable
3
Appeal2014-008325
Application 12/935,916
stress, as recited in claim 1. (Br. 7-10.) We agree with the Examiner,
however, that Bridges' accelerometer determines stresses applied to a
computer in low-power and normal power modes, using one set of sensor
signals in the low-power mode and another set of sensor signals in the
normal power mode as required by claim 1. (Ans. 3--4 (citing Bridges 3:4--
14, 3:48, 3:56-59).)
Appellant argues Bridges uses a single sensor for sensing stress during
both low-power and normal power modes, which contradicts Appellant's
claim 1. (Br. 9.) We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because
claim 1 does not require different sensors in different power modes. Claim 1
recites one set of sensor signals is used in the low-power mode and another
set of sensor signals is used in the normal power mode. Claim 1 does not,
however, preclude a single sensor from providing both sets of sensor signals.
Appellant further argues Bridges uses "the same sensor signal" for
sensing stress in both low-power and normal power modes in contrast to
Appellant's claim 1. (Br. 9.) Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner's
findings that Bridges uses separate signals SV 1 and SV 2 in different power
modes. (Ans. 3--4.) Moreover, we agree with the Examiner's findings,
which are supported by Bridges. (See Bridges 3:40-65 (referring to a signal
generated during "operational periods" of the computer and a signal
generated during "non-operational periods" of the computer).)
Appellant also contends "[t]he references are ... in widely divergent
fields of endeavor," and, in particular, "Hem relates to the field of
controlling of execution of a watering program by an irrigation controller,"
which Appellant contends is "a technical field which is fundamentally
different from the field of the present invention (automatic monitoring of
4
Appeal2014-008325
Application 12/935,916
equipment such as computers)." (Br. 11.) Appellant does not, however,
address an alternative prong of the relevant analysis for non-analogous art,
i.e., whether Hem is reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved. See
In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-81 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Hem is reasonably pertinent to
consideration of different signals being produced during different
operational modes of a computer (see Ans. 5---6), and Appellant does not
rebut this finding.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pasolini, Bridges, and Hem. Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the rejection
of claims 7-9, 11 and 12, which are not argued separately.
Appellant provides no additional arguments in support of claims 3-6
(see Br. 11 ). Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 3 over Pasolini, Bridges, Hem, and Hino,
and claims 4---6 over Pasolini, Bridges, Hem, Hino, and Schwartz.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11, and
12.
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
5