Ex Parte Feigenbaum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 2017

13691816 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2017)

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. 13/691,816 12/02/2012 Barry A. Feigenbaum AUS920120151US1 3529 76269 7590 05/25/2017 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (AUS) PO Box 765 Cardiff, CA 11415 EXAMINER AZAD, MD ABUL K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2017 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): pair@tuchmanlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BARRY A. FEIGENBAUM, SUEANN NICHOLS, HOLLY H. NIELSEN, and ELIZABETH V. WOODWARD Appeal 2017-001369 Application 13/691,816 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—25, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to automatically managing an environment in an environmental zone based on preferences for entities. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: Appeal 2017-001369 Application 13/691,816 1. A method for automatically managing an environment for a physical zone over a period of time, the method comprising: receiving position coordinates from a plurality of entities; determining by a computer processor with non-transitory storage memory which of the entities will occupy the physical zone over a time frame, the physical zone including at least one environmental characteristic; accessing environmental preferences for the entities determined to occupy the physical zone for the time frame; and adjusting the environmental characteristic of the physical zone for the time frame based on the accessed environmental preferences for the entities; wherein multiple position coordinates are received from each of the entities over time; and wherein determining which of the entities will occupy the physical zone over the time frame further comprises extrapolating a speed and direction for the entities. Claims 1 and 3—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown and McCarthy. References and Rejections McCarthy Brown US 6,498,955 B1 Dec. 24, 2002 US 2003/0236625 A1 Dec. 25, 2003 2 Appeal 2017-001369 Application 13/691,816 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in finding Brown teaches “wherein determining which of the entities will occupy the physical zone over the time frame further comprises extrapolating a speed and direction for the entities,” as recited in independent claim l.1 See App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 3— 4, 7-10. The Examiner maps the claimed “entities” to Brown’s environmental measurement devices. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. The Examiner initially cites Brown’s Figure 2 and paragraphs 31, 50, and 52 for teaching the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 6—7. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner further cites Brown’s Figure 1 and paragraph 32. See Ans. 5—6, 27-28. While Brown states “wind speed is preferably measured in knots or miles/hour” (Brown | 50), the cited Brown portions do not teach “extrapolating a speed and direction for the entities” under the Examiner’s mapping. Nor do the cited Brown portions teach “determining which of the entities will occupy the physical zone over the time frame further comprises extrapolating a speed and direction for the entities,” as required by claim 1. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited Brown portions teach the disputed claim limitation. 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal 2017-001369 Application 13/691,816 Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Each of independent claims 11 and 21 recites a claim limitation that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 11 and 21. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 21. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 3—10, 12—20, and 22—25. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—25. REVERSED 4