UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

Transcription

1

2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte CHRISTOPHER JAMES DAWSON, VINCENZO VALENTINO DI LUOFFO, CRIAG WILLIAM FELLENSTEIN, and RICK ALLEN HAMILTON II Appeal Technology Center 3600 Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING and JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R , or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R , begins to run from the MAIL DATE (paper delivery mode) or the NOTIFICATION DATE (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. 134 of the Examiner s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 17. Claims 3-4, 9-16 and have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b) (2002). The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Lopez US 7,104,447 B1 Sep. 12, 2006 The following rejection is before us for review. The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by Lopez. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A time monitor system for a single space, the system comprising: a timer that is initiated when the single space becomes occupied by a person or an object; an imaging device that captures images of identifying information of the person or the object within the single space at frequent intervals to detect if the single space remains occupied; a communication device; a user interface; processing logic including pattern recognition logic to review the captured images of the identifying information to determine if the same object or person occupies the single space as when the timer was initiated, wherein the timer, the imaging device, the communication device, the user interface, and 2

4 processing logic are electronically connected and mounted in or proximate to the single space so that the imaging device captures images of the substantially only the single space; and a control station to receive one-way communications from the communication device about the status of the single space. Independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part: an imaging device that captures images of identifying information of the person or the object within the single space at frequent intervals to detect if the single space remains occupied. The Examiner found that the imaging device is disclosed by Lopez at the presence detector (110). (Answer 3). The detector generates a signal indicating that a car is parked in the parking space. (Col. 2, ll ). The presence detector (110) can be comprised of magnetic, infrared, motion detection, pressure, temperature, or acoustic sensing. (Col. 2, ll ). However, there is no disclosure by Lopez of the presence detector (110) capturing images. The Examiner thus refers to the camera 120 in Lopez as providing the captured images, rather than the detector 110 (Answer 3-4). But, the camera 120 is triggered by the detector 110 and only after the detector 110 senses that the parking space is occupied. (Col. 3, ll ). We thus find error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) because the rejection uses two separate elements, e.g., the detector (110) and camera 120, to satisfy a single claim limitation of the imaging device. 3

5 Since claims 2, 5-8 and 17 depend from claim 1, and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1, the rejection of claims 2, 5-8 and 17 likewise cannot be sustained. New Ground of Rejection We reject claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Lopez, pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR 41.50(b) (2006). As found above, Lopez discloses using two separate devices, e.g., presence detector (110) and camera 120 to effect detection and imaging, respectively. However we find that a person with ordinary skill in the art would know to combine the two functions of detection and imaging into the camera 120 to effect both detection and imaging with the camera given that the camera 120 is used with digital extraction software (Col. 9, ll ) which can detect whether the same car is parked in the same spot via a comparison through frequent interrogation of the license image to determine if the same number remains. Regarding claims 2, 5-8 and 17, we adopt the Examiner s findings with respect to claims 2, 5-8 and 17 insofar as we have, by our analysis above, modified the camera 120 in Lopez to also include a detection function. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by Lopez. 4

6 We enter a new grounds of rejection for 1-2, 5-8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Lopez. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner s rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Lopez, is REVERSED. We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Lopez. This Decision contains a new rejection within the meaning of 37 C.F.R (b) (2007). 37 C.F.R (b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new rejection: 1. Request that prosecution be reopened by submitting an amendment or evidence or both. 37 C.F.R (b)(1). 2. Request rehearing on the record presently before the Board. 37 C.F.R (b)(2). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R (a)(1)(iv). REVERSED (37 C.F.R (B)(1)). 5

7 MP Ojanen Law Offices 2665 Riverside Lane NE Rochester MN