Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 29, 2021

2019005733 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 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. 15/519,681 04/17/2017 Andre Ullrich 2178-1676 1808 10800 7590 06/29/2021 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER ALUNKAL, THOMAS D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2687 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2021 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 ANDRE ULLRICH, JOACHIM SCHADOW, MANFRED LUTZ, THORSTEN KUEHN, CORNELIUS BOECK, FLORIAN ESENWEIN, JOERN STOCK, JOERG MAUTE, DANIEL BARTH and JUERGEN WIKER Appeal 2019-005733 Application 15/519,681 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, 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 1–23. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005733 Application 15/519,681 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a safety garment. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A safety garment, comprising: at least one sensor unit configured to sense at least one operator-specific characteristic quantity and/or at least one environment-specific characteristic quantity; and at least one communication unit configured to transmit the sensed operator-specific characteristic quantity and/or the sensed environment-specific characteristic quantity to at least one further safety garment to communicate with the further safety garment. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Downs US 6,104,816 Aug. 15, 2000 Witwer US 2011/0006894 A1 Jan. 13, 2011 REJECTION Claims 1–7 and 9–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witwer et al. (hereafter Witwer)(US PgPub 2011/0006894). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witwer and in view of Downs Jr. et al. (hereafter Downs)(US 6,104,816). Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–7, 9–23 102 Witwer 8 103 Witwer, Downs Appeal 2019-005733 Application 15/519,681 3 OPINION To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–10). Claims 1, 2, and 3 Claim 1 recites in pertinent part “at least one sensor unit configured to sense . . . at least one environment-specific characteristic quantity; and at least one communication unit configured to transmit . . . the sensed environment-specific characteristic quantity to at least one further safety garment.” The Examiner finds that Witwer discloses wearable environmental sensors 24 that sense environmental exposure of the safety garment (i.e., Witwer Fig. 1 elements 20a-20f). Final Act. 3 (citing Witwer Fig. 1, and paras. 15, 28, 29). The Examiner further finds that Witwer discloses that the environmental sensors 24 transmit the data sensed to another safety garment (i.e., the PPE personal user communicator 12 via RFID transceivers) that can be displayed on a visor or a heads up display. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Witwer paras. 13, 14). Appellant argues that Witwer reveals that the environmental sensors can be worn or carried, but Witwer does not disclose that environmental sensors 24 are part of a safety garment. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant similarly argues that Witwer’s PPE user communicator is not a garment under the plain meaning of the word “garment,” defined in pertinent part as “an article of clothing.” Reply Br. 4 (citing https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/garment). Appellant argues that the Examiner offers no legal or evidentiary basis for finding “safety garment” to mean “any wearable item that relates to the safety of a user.” Id. Appeal 2019-005733 Application 15/519,681 4 We do not agree with Appellant. “During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Appellant’s Specification defines a safety garment to include glasses, a work belt, and the like. Spec. 3. We find that Appellant’s Specification does not restrict the definition of a garment to only articles of clothing because glasses and a belt are accessories—not articles of clothing. The term “accessories” is defined, in pertinent part, as “belong to a product category in fashion stores, which includes items such as scarves, hats, gloves, belts, and purses.” Collins English Dictionary, at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/accessories (last visited June 23, 2021). Thus, the term “garment” in light of Appellant’s Specification does not preclude wearable items. We agree with the Examiner that the terms “safety garment” in light of Appellant’s Specification means any wearable item that relates to the safety of a user. Witwer discloses that the environmental sensors 24 which could include smoke, flame, or gas sensors can communicate with PPE user communicator 12. Witwer paras. 15, 28. Witwer also discloses that the PPE user communicator 12 can be worn such as on the wrist of the associated user and also the environmental sensors 24 may be of a type which can be worn. Witwer paras. 13, 15. Therefore, because the environmental sensors 24 and the PPE user communicator 12 can be worn similarly to glasses or a belt, then they can be broadly but reasonably interpreted as garments consistent with the meaning Appeal 2019-005733 Application 15/519,681 5 provided by the Specification. Further, because the environmental sensors 24 monitor smoke, flame, and/or gas and alert the users of end of life of other equipment such as gloves, boots, eye protection, etc., the sensors provide safety for the user. See Witwer paras. 13, 28–29. Similarly, the PPE user communicator 12 receives the environmental sensor information and information from the RFID tags of the PPE configuration information to ensure a worker has all of the required PPE for the job and, therefore, provides safety for the user. See Witwer para. 24‒25. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not argue separately the rejection of claims 2–3 and, therefore, we also affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2– 3. Claim 4 Appellant argues that Witwer fails to disclose that the safety garment with the sensor includes an output unit which outputs work instructions. Appeal Br. 8. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds that Witwer discloses that alerts are provided to the user of the safety garment indicating required maintenance. Final Act. 4. Witwer discloses that the user communicator 12 detects an unauthorized PPE configuration and notifies the user via an aural alert and/or display. Witwer para. 24. Witwer also discloses that the display can be on a separate unit, for example a visor or heads-up display. Witwer para. 13. That is, the visual display and/or aural alert are work instructions in that these provide the user with instructions and require action or work to correct the problem. That is, the safety garment includes the additional feature of a visual display and/or aural alert. Appeal 2019-005733 Application 15/519,681 6 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 4. Claims 5–7, 9–23 Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 5–7 and 9–23 are largely conclusory and fail to address the Examiner’s factual findings. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action and we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 5–7 and 9–23. Claim 8 As we discussed supra the PPE user communicator unit 12 constitutes a garment. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Witwer discloses at least one input unit configured to input operator-specific control commands, wherein the communication unit transmits the operator-specific control commands to an external unit to control the external unit (Paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0031, and 0033 where the PPE user communicator unit 12 includes a button that initiates a communication sequence with the control device 30). Final Act. 5. We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Downs teaches a safety device that includes a voice-command-operated two-way switch that actives with a voice command (col. 3, ll. 1–25). Final Act. 10. We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the a voice- command-operated two-way switch of Downs in place of the manual input Appeal 2019-005733 Application 15/519,681 7 button of Witwer, to allow for hands free activation which eases operations for the user. Id. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 8. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23 is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9–23 102 Witwer 1–7, 9–23 8 103 Witwer, Downs 8 Overall Outcome 1–23 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). AFFIRMED