SIEMENS SCHWEIZ AG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 2021

2021002688 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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. 14/768,077 08/14/2015 Martin Fischer 03869.119002 3437 162436 7590 12/29/2021 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC 401 Congress Avenue Suite 1650 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER FIN, CAROLYN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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): dallen@sgbfirm.com patent@sgbfirm.com trosson@sgbfirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN FISCHER and MATTHIAS STUTZ Appeal 2021-002688 Application 14/768,077 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. 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, 3–7, 9, 10, and 12–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM–IN–PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Schweiz AG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002688 Application 14/768,077 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (text in bold for emphasis): 1. A danger detector comprising: an alarm housing with an alarm cover, a first part of the alarm cover transparent to heat radiation in the mid-infrared range, a second part of the alarm cover impermeable to heat radiation in the mid-infrared range, a non-contact heat radiation sensor disposed in an interior of the alarm housing and optically aligned to the first part of the alarm cover, wherein the non-contact heat radiation sensor is configured to output a sensor signal sensitive to incident heat radiation, a processing unit, and computer-readable instructions stored in non-transitory computer-readable media and executable by the processing unit to: monitor the sensor signal output by the non-contact heat radiation sensor, including filtering the sensor signal in a frequency range from 6 to 30 Hz, upon discovering fluctuations or flicker frequencies in the sensor signal within the frequency range, transmit a first message including an indication of open flame, filter the sensor signal with an edge frequency of 1 Hz to isolate a steady baseline component of the sensor signal, determine, based on the steady baseline component of the sensor signal, an ambient temperature value corresponding to the steady baseline component and identify the ambient temperature value as an ambient temperature in an environment of the danger detector, compare the determined ambient temperature value with predetermined temperature comparison value, and Appeal 2021-002688 Application 14/768,077 3 transmit a second message in response to determining that the determined ambient temperature value exceeds the predetermined temperature comparison value. REJECTION2 1. Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, and 12–20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. OPINION In response to the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant presents argument for the patentability of independent claims 1 and 20. We therefore consider these claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 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.”). After considering the argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded of reversible error regarding Rejection 1. However, we summarily affirm Rejection 2. 2 We refer to page 4 of the Answer wherein the Examiner discusses certain rejections that have been withdrawn and therefore not included here. Appeal 2021-002688 Application 14/768,077 4 Rejection 1 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, and 12–20 based upon the position that these claims cover any and all ways of monitoring/analyzing the sensor signal output for fluctuations or flicker frequencies characteristic of an “open fire.” Final Act. 4–5. Also, the Examiner posits that these claims cover any and all ways of determining a temperature value for an ambient temperature in an environment of the danger detector based on a steady baseline component of the sensor signal. Final Act. 5. It is the Examiner’s position that this subject matter is unsupported by the Specification. Final Act. 4–5. It is Appellant’s position that the claims require monitoring the sensor signal output in a very specific way, i.e., filtering the sensor signal as recited. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant explains that only fluctuations or flicker frequencies within the recited frequency range are monitored for signals characteristic of an open fire. Hence, Appellant submits that the claims do not cover any and all ways of monitoring/analyzing the sensor signal. Appeal Br. 7. We are persuaded by this line of argument and note that page 24 of the Specification describes an embodiment involving frequency filtering in a frequency range from 6 to 30 Hz as claimed. With regard to the Examiner’s position that the claims cover any and all ways of determining a temperature value for an ambient temperature in an environment of the danger detector based on a steady baseline component of the sensor signal, and that there is no support for such subject matter, we are persuaded by Appellant’s stated position in the record as set forth on pages 8–9 of the Appeal Brief and on pages 3–4 of the Reply Brief. As Appeal 2021-002688 Application 14/768,077 5 noted by Appellant on page 4 of the Reply Brief, the specification need not disclose what is well-known to those skilled in the art. In re Buchner, 929 F. 2d 660, (Fed. Circ. 1991). As explained by Appellant, a person having ordinary skill would have understood how to use “a non-contact heat radiation sensor” to determine a temperature. Appellant states that this is in fact what the most straightforward use of such a sensor would provide. Reply Br. 4. Appellant additionally points out how the Specification describes the specific limitation of “determining a temperature value for an ambient temperature based on a steady component of the sensor signals.” Appeal Br. 8–9. In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. Rejection 2 Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 6–7. On page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner states that the remaining issue regarding the indefiniteness rejection of claim 20 involves the recitation of “open fire.” On page 7 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner states that the term “open fire” has been previously recited (in other words, recited twice), and it is unclear whether these terms are the same or different elements.3 Final Act. 7. See also page 7 of the Answer. 3 Claim 20 recites “open fire” and “open flame” in lines 20–21. It is believed that these are the terms referred to by the Examiner in making the rejection. Appeal 2021-002688 Application 14/768,077 6 Appellant addresses the indefiniteness rejection on page pages 9–10 of the Appeal Brief, but does not specifically address the aforementioned position made by the Examiner regarding the “open fire” term recited in claim 20. The Examiner points this out on page 7 of the Answer. In the Reply Brief, Appellant mistakenly believes the indefiniteness rejection has been withdrawn in its entirety. Reply Br. 2. We thus summarily affirm Rejection 2. Cf. Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that a ground of rejection is waived when an appellant fails to contest the rejection and that the Board is free to affirm such an uncontested rejection without considering the merits). CONCLUSION We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–20 112 Written Description 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–20 20 112 Indefiniteness 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART