Ex Parte ZhangDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 17, 201613478033 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/478,033 101575 7590 Wei Zhang 88 Cypress Place Newtown, PA 18940 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 05/22/2012 Wei Zhang 11/17/2016 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. INWZ1203 3012 EXAMINER MAHASE, PAMESHANAND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 11/17/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WEI ZHANG Appeal2015-006672 Application 13/478,033 Technology Center Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 18-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-17 are cancelled. App. Br. 3. We affirm and designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection within the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2014). Appeal2015-006672 Application 13/478,033 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's application relates to . . . using [a] mobile communication device, for example a mobile phone, to improve home safety, and in particular, to using a mobile communication device to accept [an] RF (Radio Frequency) signal sent by [a] home appliance component having [a] status sensor incorporated therewith and to alert [a] user for [a] potential safety issue following the acknowledgement of the RF signal. Spec i-f 3. Claim 18, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 18. A burner switch knob embodying a control circuit comprising a position sensor and a RF transmitter, whereby, in operation, the knob is used for control of a cooking apparatus and said control circuit detects a position change of the knob by using said position sensor and causes said RF transmitter to send out a RF signal in accordance with said position change. Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)1 as being unpatentable over Volodarsky (US 2006/0202848 Al; Sept. 14, 2006), Gorman et al. (US 2008/0047672 Al; Feb 28, 2008) ("Gorman"), and Gagas et al. (US 2007/0028912 Al; Feb. 8, 2007) ("Gagas"). See Final Act. 2--4. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Volodarsky, Gorman, Gagas, and Coronel et al. (US 2008/0164995 Al; July 10, 2008). See Final Act. 4-5. Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App. Br." filed Dec. 5, 2014; "Reply Br." filed July 6, 2015) and the Specification ("Spec." filed May 22, 2012) for the positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed June 13, 2014) and Answer ("Ans." 1 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the effective date of the America Invents Act of 2011. Final Act 2. 2 Appeal2015-006672 Application 13/478,033 mailed May 8, 2015) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014). ISSUE Based on Appellant's arguments, we discuss the appeal by referring to claim 18. The issue presented by Appellant's contentions is whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Volodarsky, Gorman, and Gagas teaches or suggests a "burner switch knob embodying a control circuit comprising a position sensor and a RF transmitter," as recited in claim 18. ANALYSIS Appellant's arguments for the patentability of claim 18 boil down to a contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have put an RF transmitter in Volodarsky's range knob 102 (Volodarsky Figs. 1, 3). See generally App. Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 2-13. Volodarsky's Figure 1 is reproduced below: 3 Appeal2015-006672 Application 13/478,033 RMCopy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation