Ex Parte Grabinger et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2019

14592402 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/592,402
90545 7590
HONEYWELL/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
01/08/2015
02/04/2019
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cory Grabinger
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0044021-1161.1892101 6097
EXAMINER
ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
Honeywell. USPTO@STWiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CORY GRABINGER, MIROSLA V MIKULICA and
WILLIAM BRAY
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a
single infrastructure arrangement resulting from merging two or
more sets of infrastructure. For example, an arrangement may
incorporate an infrastructure or a set of infrastructure
incorporating components with wireless access points and one or
more sets of infrastructure with components having functional
purposes, for example, such as those of heating, ventilation and
air conditioning systems, smoke detection, security, and so on.
An integrated infrastructure may encompass components having
the functional purposes and the wireless access points.
Spec. ,r 3.
Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative of the claimed invention and read as
follows:
1. A wall module arrangement with integrated
infrastructure level radio frequency (RF)
access points, comprising:
a local area network;
one or more components for a heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HV AC) system, connected to the local area
network; and
one or more RF access points connected to the local area
network; and wherein:
one or more RF access points are integrated in the one or
more components for a heating, ventilation and air conditioning
system, respectively;
the local area network, the one or more components, and
the one or more RF access points receive power from one or more
items selected from a group consisting of power over the
network, power provided by a wired connection to a remote
source, and power provided by a local source;
the integrated infrastructure comprises at least the HV AC
system and a second infrastructure having components for a
second electrical control system different from the HV AC
system; and
2
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
the one or more RF access points provide direct access to
an external internet including the world wide web from a device
separate from the HVAC system and the second infrastructure
via the local area network.
15. An integrated infrastructure system comprising:
a local area network;
a first set of infrastructure including components having
functional purposes;
a second set of infrastructure including components
having functional purposes different from the functional
purposes of the first set of infrastructure;
one or more components from the first or second sets of
infrastructure connected to the local area network; and
wherein the one or more components comprise one or
more RF access points, respectively, connected to the local area
network, at least one of the RF access points configured to
provide access to an external internet including the world wide
web from a device separate from the first and second sets of
infrastructure.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Sotak (US 2005/0108091 Al, published May
19, 2005). Final Act. 4---6.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Bergman (US 2014/0031992 Al, published Jan. 30, 2014), Stanford
(US 2007/0135086 Al, published Jun. 14, 2007), and Sotak. Final Act. 7-9.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Bergman, Stanford, Sotak, and Shaffer (US 2013/0091258 Al, published
Apr. 11, 2013). Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner rejected claims 7-10, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Sotak and Bergman. Final Act. 11-13.
3
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Sotak, Bergman, and Stanford. Final Act. 14.
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sotak,
Bergman, and Shaffer. Final Act. 15.
The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sotak
and Shaffer. Final Act. 15-16.
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sotak
and Shaffer. Final Act. 16.
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102 BASED ON SOTAK
Claims 15, 17, and 18
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as anticipated.
Appellants argue that Sotak does not teach or suggest "a component
from the first set of infrastructure allows a device, separate from the
infrastructure, to access the internet." Appeal Br. 8-9. Appellants asserts
that Sotak discloses a home management system with a central controller
that is in communication with a local area network, but "there appears to be
no teaching or suggestion of a wireless access point in any of the
infrastructures having a functional purpose." Appeal Br. 9. In other words,
according to Appellants,
none of the security system, audio system, irrigation system,
HVAC system, lighting system, and so forth of Sotak et al.,
appears to teach or suggest an RF access point configured to
provide access to an external internet from a device separate from
the first and second sets of infrastructure, as recited in claim 15.
Appeal Br. 9.
4
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
On the other hand, the Examiner finds that Sotak' s home management
system includes an access point 20 that provides a separate device internet
access. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Fig. 2, ,r,r 40, 55-56); Ans. 3--4 (citing ,r,r 40,
52, 55-56). Appellants acknowledge that Sotak's residential access point 20
provides access to the internet, but maintain that this residential access point
is "completely separate" from any of Sotak's infrastructures. Appeal Br. 10.
Namely, the residential access point is "separate from the security system,
audio system, irrigation system, HV AC system, lighting system, and so
forth)." Appeal Br. 10. Appellants further elaborate:
For example, a smart device, such as a light bulb, may be
controlled (e.g., turned off and/or on) via a cell phone or other
device connected to the internet. In some cases, the smart device
( e.g., light bulb) may even provide feedback to the cell phone.
However, this does not mean the light bulb provides a means to
access the internet. In other words, a laptop that is in no way
connected to the internet cannot use the light bulb to access the
internet. The light bulb, while capable of wireless
communication, is missing the components and structure to
allow a device to connect to the internet via the light bulb. A
component having a function within the infrastructure having an
RF access point is missing from the disclosure of Sotak et al.
Appeal Br. 10. See also Reply Br. 2 ("Stating that a controller is capable of
accessing the internet cannot be considered to positively disclose that the
connection is achieved through one of the components of the
infrastructure.").
We find this argument unpersuasive. Sotak is directed to a home
management system. As the Examiner explains, and as shown in Figure 1
below, Sotak describes, in an exemplary embodiment, that residence 10
includes a residential access point 20.
5
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
Figure 1
Sotak describes that this residential access point 20 "provides access to the
residence 10 for communications/information medias, including for
example, POTS (plain old telephone service), cable television, local and/or
wide area wired and/or wireless networks (LAN/WAN) and/or digital
satellite service (DSS)." Sotak ,r 48; see also Sotak ,r 40. As also shown in
Figure 1, residential access points provides this access to the residence
aware controller, the controlled devices, as well as separate input/output
devices. These input/output devices include, for example, personal
computers, laptop computers, smartphones or the like. Sotak ,ISO. As such,
Sotak's system includes a component, i.e. the residential access point 20,
configured to provide access to an external internet including the World
Wide Web for a separate device, e.g. certain input/output devices.
6
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
Appellants' argument that Sotak's residential access point is not part
of the first or second infrastructure is likewise unavailing. Notably, claim 15
merely requires a first and second infrastructure including "components
having functional purposes" without further limitation on the infrastructure
or the functional purpose. In other words, merely having a component
having any functional purpose, such as providing access to the internet for
the infrastructure, would satisfy the claimed functional purpose. As such,
Sotak discloses an infrastructure including a component having a functional
purpose and that component providing access to the external internet for a
separate device, as required by claim 15.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 15,
17, and 18 as anticipated by Sotak.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON BERGMAN, STANFORD AND SOTAK,
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 as unpatentable over Bergman,
Stanford, and Sotak.
Appellants argue that Bergman fails to teach the recited access point.
Namely, Appellants point out that although Bergman's HVAC controller
may access the internet, there is no teaching that other devices may use the
HVAC controller to access the internet. Appeal Br. 12. Appellants
additionally allege that "[ n ]either Stanford nor Sotak et al. appear to teach or
suggest an HV AC controller, or other infrastructure device, that provides an
access point to connect a device directly to the external internet." Appeal
Br. 13.
7
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
As discussed above, we disagree with respect to Sotak. Sotak teaches
a residential access point that provides access to the internet for the resident
aware controller and controlled devices as well as a variety of input/output
devices. See, e.g., Sotak ,r,r 40, 48, 50, 52, 55-56; Ans. 5. Sotak's
residential access point 20 is also a component for a heating, ventilation and
air conditioning system (HV AC) system or infrastructure. For example,
Sotak discloses, similar to Appellants, the desire "to integrate various
residential services into a single residential infrastructure" and this may be
done, for example, by including a single access point. Sotak, ,r 6. This at
least suggests to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention that Sotak's
residential access point is part of the integrated infrastructures, including the
HVAC system. See also Fig. 2 (depicting that Sotak's home automation
system includes an HV AC System 46) ,r 50 ( describing that the residential
access point is used for controlling the HVAC system). As such, we are not
persuaded that Sotak, together with Bergman and Stanford, fails to teach or
suggest "one or more RF access points are integrated in the one or more
components for a heating, ventilation and air conditioning system" where the
access point provides direct access to an external internet including the
world wide web from for a separate device, as required by claim 1.
Appellants also assert that "there appears to be no motivation,
suggestion or other reason for one of ordinary skill in the art applied to
Bergman et al., Stanford, or Sotak et al., to arrive at the device as claimed."
Appeal Br. 13. Appellants blanket assertion, without more, is unavailing.
See, e.g., Final Act. 8 ( asserting that a skilled artisan would be motivated to
combine the prior art references to be able to control communication of
various devices through a LAN).
8
Appeal2018-006123
Application 14/592,402
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2,
5, and 6 as unpatentable over Bergman, Stanford, and Sotak.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 4, 7-13, 14, 16, 19 and 20
Appellants present similar arguments as those presented for claims 1
and 15. For example, with respect to independent claim 7, Appellants allege
that Sotak fails to teach or suggest "a wireless access point in any of the
infrastructures having a functional purpose." Appeal Br. 15; see also, e.g.,
Appeal Br. 16-17 (arguing for claim 15 that "Sotak[] do[es] not appear to
teach or suggest each and every element of claim 15, from which claim 16
depends."), Appeal Br. 18-19. For the reasons discussed above, we find
Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner's decision to reject claims the remaining claims as unpatentable
over the cited combinations of prior art.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9