Ex Parte Amundson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2012

10726247 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN B. AMUNDSON, HEIDI J. FINCH,
and BRENT D. VICK
____________________

Appeal 2010-0064351
Application 10/726,247
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and ELENI
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Honeywell International Inc. (App. Br. 4.)
Appeal 2010-006435
Application 10/726,247

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-58 and 61-70. Claims 59, 60, and 71 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 4-5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a mechanism for controlling a heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC) system. In particular, the HVAC system
includes a user interface for activating or deactivating the heating or air
conditioning portion thereof as scheduled or specified by the user. (Fig. 2,
Spec. 7: 4-16.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 54 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
54. A method for controlling an HVAC system that is
adapted to modify and control at least one environmental
condition of an inside space in accordance with a first set point,
the method comprising:
deactivating at least a first part of the HVAC system to
not modify and control at least one environmental condition of
the inside space in accordance with the first set point;
monitoring the environmental condition in the inside
space that the HVAC system is no longer modifying and
controlling; and
automatically activating at least the first part of the
HVAC system to again modify the environmental condition in
the inside space if the environmental condition in the inside
Appeal 2010-006435
Application 10/726,247

3
space passes a second set point, wherein the second set point is
different than the first set point.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Roy US 5,257,736 Nov. 2, 1993
Liebl US 5,289,362 Feb. 22, 1994
Riley US 5,395,042 Mar. 7, 1995
Alles US 6,983,889 B2 Jan. 10, 2006
Ehlers US 7,130,719 B2 Oct. 31, 2006

Rejections on Appeal2
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 54-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Alles.
2. Claims 66-70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ehlers.
3. Claims 1-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Alles, Liebl, and Ehlers.
4. Claims 50-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Alles, Riley, and Ehlers.

2 As noted by Appellants in the Reply Brief, the Examiner has omitted from
the Answer the indefiniteness rejection of claim 57, and the Examiner has
not responded to Appellants’ rebuttal arguments to the rejection. (Reply Br.
1.) Because the Examiner has not expressly indicated an intent to withdraw
the rejection in the Answer, we presume that the rejection is still in force.
However, in view of the Examiner’s failure to respond to Appellants’
rebuttal arguments thereto, we pro forma reverse the rejection.
Appeal 2010-006435
Application 10/726,247

4
5. Claim 58 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Riley and Alles.
6. Claims 61-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Riley, Alles, and Ehlers.
7. Claims 65 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Riley, Alles, Ehlers, and
Roy.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 16-34 and the Reply Brief, pages 1-7.
Claims 54-56
Appellants argue that Alles does not describe deactivating a first part
of an HVAC system in accordance with a first set point, and activating the
same first part of the HVAC system in accordance with a second set point.
(App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 2.) In particular, Appellants argue that Alles
discloses activating a first part and a second part of the HVAC system in
accordance with a first set point, and a second set point, respectively. (App.
Br. 17-18.) However, Appellants submit that Alles does not describe
activating and deactivating the same part of the HVAC system in accordance
with the two set points. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that the different comfort climate
selections disclosed by Alles describe the different set points for
activating/deactivating a same part of the HVAC system. (Ans. 25.)
Appeal 2010-006435
Application 10/726,247

5
Based upon our review of the record, we find error in the Examiner’s
finding of anticipation regarding claim 54.
Figure 21 of Alles is reproduced below:

Figure 21 illustrates the “Comfort-Climate” popup menu.
As depicted in Figure 21, Alles discloses an interface for allowing a
user to select a desired operation mode of the HVAC (comfort climate) in
accordance with predetermined set points (temperature ranges) associated
therewith (2101). We agree with Appellants that selecting one of the
temperature modes (sleeping, active, empty, relaxing) does not result in
activating and deactivating a same part of the HVAC system in accordance
with its different modes of operation. (Reply Br. 2.) Although one may
reasonably surmise from the disclosure of Alles that a selected temperature
range (e.g. empty: 65-86) suggests a first set point for which the heater or air
Appeal 2010-006435
Application 10/726,247

6
conditioner (AC) is activated and a second set point for which it is
deactivated, the reference does not so indicate. Thus, while the disclosed
system does turn on and off at certain set points, they are not expressly or
inherently disclosed therein in order to support the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation. Because the rejection of claims 55 and 56 suffer of the noted
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 54, Appellants have also shown error in
the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.
Claim 57
Appellants argue that Alles does not describe overriding the fan for a
time period corresponding to a time indicator and returning to normal fan
operation after that time has expired. According to Appellants, while Alles
discloses allowing a user to specify time periods (sleeping, active, empty,
relaxing) associated with different fan settings of the HVAC system, the
time period are parts of the regular schedule. Therefore, they do not override
the normal operation of the fan for a specified time period to subsequently
return to normal fan operation. (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 3-4.) We do not
agree with Appellants. We note at the outset that Appellants have not
provided a definition for normal operation. We therefore broadly but
reasonably construe the expression normal operation according to its
ordinary meaning as any operation of the fan within its manufacturer’s
specification. This includes the fan operation in any of the modes disclosed
by Alles. Accordingly, we find that by switching the fan operation from one
mode to another (e.g. active to sleeping and then to active), the fan speed in
Appeal 2010-006435
Application 10/726,247

7
the active mode is overridden for the time period set out for the sleeping
mode upon which expiration the fan returns to its normal speed in the active
mode. Because the claim does not preclude the fan from operating from one
normal mode to another, Alles’ disclosure of switching the fan from one
mode to another for a specified duration describes the disputed limitations. It
follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 57.
Claims 66-70
Appellants argue that Ehlers does not describe adjusting a control set
point inside a structure if an environmental condition sensed outside the
structure exceeds a predetermined value. According to Appellants, while
Ehlers discloses monitoring indoor humidity to adjust an indoor temperature
set point, it does not similarly disclose performing such indoor temperature
adjustment for sensed outdoor humidity. (App. Br. 22-23.) We do not agree
with Appellants. Ehlers discloses a customer site having a thermostat
(1.30D) including an indoor sensor and an outdoor sensor for sensing air
quality. Based on the sensed data, the thermostat controls the air quality at
other devices (108) such as an HVAC system. (Col. 28, ll. 54-67.) We find
that because the HVAC system being controlled is an inside unit, the sensed
data including indoor and outdoor air quality data being monitored to adjust
the air quality of the unit describes the disputed limitations. It follows that
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 66.
Appeal 2010-006435
Application 10/726,247

8
Because claims 67-70 are not argued separately, they fall together
with claim 66 for the same reasons discussed above. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 1-53, 57, 58, and 61-65
Appellants argue that the combination of Alles, Liebl and Ehlers does
not teach or suggest providing two or more schedule override choices from
which the user selects a schedule to override the regular schedule. (App. Br.
23-34; Reply Br. 6.) According to Appellants, while Alles discloses
different thermostat settings (sleeping, active, empty, relaxing, vacation,
party) associated with particular time periods, those time periods correspond
to parameters within the regular schedule, but they do not serve to schedule
override choices. (Id.) We do not agree with Appellants. As discussed above,
we note that Appellants have not provided a definition for the regular
schedule. We therefore broadly but reasonably construe regular schedule
according to its ordinary meaning as any period of time during which the
thermostat is able to function. We further note that the claim does not
preclude a period of time within a regular schedule from overriding another
time period. Accordingly, we find that Alles’ disclosure of switching from
one time period to another teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Additionally, we find unavailing Appellants’ arguments that the
additional references relied upon by the Examiner do not cure the noted
deficiencies. (Id.) As discussed above, we find no such discrepancies in
Alles for the additional references to cure. It follows that Appellants have
Appeal 2010-006435
Application 10/726,247

9
not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-53, 57, 58, and 61-
65.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-53, 57, 58 and 61-70
as set forth above. However, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of
claims 54-56, as well as the Examiner’s rejection of claim 57 under § 112,
second paragraph.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc