Power Survey LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 17, 2021

2020005241 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2021)

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. 14/828,062 08/17/2015 David Kalokitis PRS004CIPC5 1945 54698 7590 12/17/2021 MOSER TABOADA 1030 BROAD STREET SUITE 203 SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 EXAMINER MAINI, RAHUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2866 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2021 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): docketing@mtiplaw.com llinardakis@mtiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID KALOKITIS, LEONARD JOSHUA SCHULTZ, CHRISTOS ALKIVIADIS POLYZOIS, and VINCENT PARAGANO Appeal 2020-005241 Application 14/828,062 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges. BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Affirm. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Power Survey LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005241 Application 14/828,062 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A mobile apparatus mounted to a motor vehicle for identifying a hazardously energized object, the apparatus comprising: one or more sensor probes that (i) detect an electric field resulting from a stray voltage anomaly present on an object electrically energized due to a fault in an electrical power distribution system and (ii) provide an analog signal corresponding to the electric field; a signal converter that generates a digital signal from the analog signal; a processor that processes the digital signal and generates, based on the processed digital signal, an indication to a user that the object is energized, wherein the indication is based on the frequency of the electrical power distribution system. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Thomas et al (hereinafter “Thomas”) 3,662,260 May 9, 1972 Geiszler et al (hereinafter “Geiszler”) 4,064,499 Dec. 20, 1977 Ito et al. (hereinafter “Ito”) 4,476,579 Oct. 9, 1984 Kraz 5,773,974 June 30, 1998 Appeal 2020-005241 Application 14/828,062 3 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12, 14–18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Ito. 2. Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Ito and further in view of Geiszler. 3. Claims 8, 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Ito and further in view of Kraz. OPINION Appellant does not make separate arguments in support of patentability of any particular claim or claim grouping. Appeal Br. 7–10. Accordingly, the claims subject to each ground of rejection will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). As such, our determination with regard to Rejection 1 is dispositive for Rejections 2 and 3. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections Appeal 2020-005241 Application 14/828,062 4 on appeal essentially for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, with the following emphasis. Beginning on page 6 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s position involves an understanding that Thomas teaches a mobile apparatus that measures changing magnetic fields to detect an electric field. See also Reply Br. 2. In response, the Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s assessment of the rejection in this regard, and states that the Examiner did not find any mention of magnetic fields in the Thomas reference, and Thomas’s teachings involve detection of an electric field. Ans. 3–4; Thomas col 2. Thus, this line of argument offered by Appellant is unpersuasive because it does not adequately address the Examiner’s position and teachings of Thomas. Appellant next argues that Appellant’s claim 1 requires a mobile apparatus that detects a specific type of electric field — i.e., the electric field resulting from a stray voltage anomaly present on an object electrically energized due to a fault in an electrical power distribution system — which by its nature has specific properties (e.g., frequency, strength, uniformity). Appeal Br. 7. Appellant submits that neither Thomas nor Ito suggests such an electric field or the detection of such an electric field. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant states that the Examiner relies upon the embodiment of Thomas’ Figure 14 for depicting a mobile vehicle having a probe used to sense electric fields due to an explosion. Appellant argues that such an electric field does not emanate from an electrically energized object as required by claim 1, and that there is nothing in Thomas to suggest his device that senses an electric field due to an explosion can also detect the specific electric field Appeal 2020-005241 Application 14/828,062 5 recited in claim 1. A similar line of argument is presented on pages 2–4 of the Reply Brief. In response, beginning on page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner states that there is nothing to differentiate an electric field generated by an object energized due to a fault in an electric power distribution system from any other electric field, and that the probes recited in the claims do not differ structurally. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argue that the probes, as recited in the claims, differ in terms of function. Reply Br. 3. However, we note that “[e]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1963)). In summary, the material or article worked upon does not limit the apparatus claim. Moreover, Appellant does not adequately establish that the structural elements in the claims are patentably different. In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1–3. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision. Appeal 2020-005241 Application 14/828,062 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 9, 12, 14– 18, 20 103(a) Thomas, Ito 1, 3–7, 9, 12, 14–18, 20 2, 13 103(a) Thomas, Ito, Geiszler 2, 13 8, 10, 11, 19 103(a) Thomas, Ito, Kraz 8, 10, 11, 19 Overall Outcome 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED