Ex Parte Grohman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

12603483 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
12/603,483 10/21/2009 Wojciech Grohman 018635.0171 (P080169) 6607
134318 7590 12/02/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P./Lennox
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOJCIECH GROHMAN, JACOB JENNINGS, and
AMANDA FILBECK1
Appeal 2016-002322
Application 12/603,483
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Lennox Industries Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002322
Application 12/603,483
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “an HVAC [(heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning)] data processing and communication
network.” Abstract. In disclosed embodiments, various components (e.g.,
furnace, compressor, and air handlers) of an HVAC system may
communicate with each other or to a user via a data bus. Spec. H 25, 27.
Examples of information shared include identity, capability, status, and
operational data. Spec. 125. Further, in disclosed embodiments, a display
may be included to “provide additional functions such as operational,
diagnostic and status message display and an attractive, visual interface that
allows an installer, user or repairman to perform actions with respect to the
system [] more intuitively.” Spec. 129.
Claims 1 and 17 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method of manufacturing an HVAC data processing and
communication system, comprising:
configuring a user interface to:
receive a first parameter setting associated with a system
device addressable by said user interface via a network data bus,
said network data bus being configurable to interconnect a
plurality of system devices;
send a first message to said system device via said network
data bus, said first message including said first parameter setting;
receive a second message from said system device via said
network data bus, said second message including a second
parameter setting that is dependent on said first parameter
setting; and
alter a display screen to make said second parameter
setting available for viewing.
2
Appeal 2016-002322
Application 12/603,483
17. An HVAC data processing and communication network,
comprising:
a network data bus configurable to interconnect a plurality
of system devices;
a subnet controller configured to receive from via said
network data bus a first message including environmental data;
and
a user interface configured to:
receive from said subnet controller via said networked
data bus a second message including said environmental data;
and
alter a display screen to display said environmental data.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1—5, 7—13, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoglund et al. (US 2008/0134098 Al;
June 5, 2008) (“Hoglund”) and Hunter et al. (US 6,363,422 Bl; Mar. 26,
2002) (“Hunter”). Final Act. 2—7.
2. Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoglund, Hunter, and Bergman et al. (US
2007/0008116 Al; Jan. 11, 2007) (“Bergman”). Final Act. 7-8.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hoglund
and Hunter teaches or suggests sending a first parameter setting to a system
3
Appeal 2016-002322
Application 12/603,483
device and receiving a second parameter setting, which is dependent upon
the first parameter setting, from the system device, as required in claim l?2
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hoglund,
Hunter, and Berman teaches or suggests receiving a (second) message
including environmental data from a subnet controller, as required in claim
17?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hoglund,
Hunter, and Berman teaches or suggests “altering] a display screen to
display said environmental data,” as recited in claim 17?
ANALYSIS3
Claims 1—16
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Hoglund teaches, inter alia,
“send[ing] a first message to [a] system device . . . including [a] first
parameter setting; [and] receiving] a second message from said system
device . . . including a second parameter setting that is dependent on said
first parameter setting.” Final Act. 3 (citing Hoglund ^fl[ 58—59, Figs. 7, 31—
38). The Examiner explains Hoglund teaches configuration menus for an
HVAC system wherein the presented menu is based on previous settings
entered by the user. Final Act. 3. Further, in the Answer, the Examiner
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive of the rejection of claim 1.
We do not address additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments with
respect to claim 1.
3 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
May 4, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed December 21, 2015
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on October 23, 2015
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on August 29,
2014, from which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2016-002322
Application 12/603,483
finds “Hunter discloses a server system that evaluates response variable data
in accordance to parameters including temperature and humidity as
examples of first parameters . . . [and] the server then makes a decision as to
what actions to take.” Ans. 9-10 (citing Hunter, col. 11,11. 29-48, col. 12,
1. 61—col. 13,1. 9, col. 13,11. 53-67).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Hoglund teaches
receiving a second parameter from a system device that is dependent upon a
first parameter setting. App. Br. 7—10. Specifically, Appellants assert
Hoglund is directed to providing an intuitive and easy to use menu structure
for a zone control panel. App. Br. 8 (citing Hoglund, Abstract). Appellants
dispute the Examiner’s finding that the particular menu screen to be
displayed is the claimed second parameter dependent upon a first parameter
setting, but rather is a pre-defined menu structure that the user may “scroll
through.” App. Br. 8—9 (citing Hoglund ^fl[ 7, 54, 58—59, Figs. 5, 7).
To the extent the Examiner relies on Hunter to teach the disputed
limitation, Appellants contend the passage relied upon by the Examiner does
not teach a parameter setting, but instead refers to a measurement of the
actual temperature. Reply Br. 2—\ (citing Hunter, col. 11,11. 29-43).
Further, Appellants argue the example in Hunter (i.e., measuring an actual
temperature of 81° and a temperature setting of 80°) does not teach setting a
first parameter (i.e., the measure temperature), or sending a second
parameter (i.e., the temperature setting) based on the first parameter to a user
interface. Reply Br. 2—A.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of Examiner error. As
identified by the Examiner, Hoglund teaches a configuration mode of an
HVAC system at a zone control panel. See, e.g., Hoglund ]ff[ 18, 58—59,
5
Appeal 2016-002322
Application 12/603,483
Fig. 7. Although Hoglund teaches the menu options may be dependent upon
previous selections, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained why the
evidence supports a finding that Hoglund’s subsequent menu options are
provided from the system device via the network data bus, as recited in
claim 1. Instead, we agree with Appellants that Hoglund teaches a menu
structure for configuring an HVAC system.
Further, we agree with Appellants that Hunter, as relied upon by the
Examiner, does not teach the disputed limitation. Rather, the identified
example of Hunter describes the operation of the system as a result of
comparing a measured value (i.e., temperature) to a set value. See Hunter,
col. 11,11. 29-49. The Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation or
technical reasoning in support of a finding that the temperature threshold is
dependent upon the measured temperature. Rather, the evidence merely
discloses the measured and set temperatures are two values that cause the
system of Hunter to perform certain acts (e.g., turn a fan on).
For the reasons discussed supra and on the record before us, we are
constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For similar
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9, which recites
similar limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 2—8 and 10—16, which depend therefrom.
Claims 17—20
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Hoglund teaches or
suggests a user interface configured to “receive from said subnet controller
via said networked data bus a second message including said environmental
data,” as recited in claim 17. App. Br. 12—13. Appellants advance similar
6
Appeal 2016-002322
Application 12/603,483
arguments to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as were advanced with
respect to claim 1. App. Br. 12—13. In particular, Appellants argue “the
menu structure of Hoglund does not receive a second message from a subnet
controller, let alone a second message including environmental data from a
subnet controller.” App. Br. 12 (citing Hoglund 56—59).
As an initial matter, we note the scope of claim 17 is broader than the
scope of claim 1 in that the received second message need not include a
second parameter based on the first parameter setting. Cf. claim 1 and claim
17.
Additionally, we are not persuaded of Examiner error because
Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection.
Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, the zone control panel’s
checkout mode from paragraphs 79-86 of Hoglund teaches, inter alia,
receiving a second message including environmental data from a subnet
controller. Final Act. 6 (citing Hoglund 79-86, Figs. 23—43).
Further, we note Appellants had argued Hunter fails to teach
“alter[ing] a display screen to make said second parameter setting available
for viewing,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. In particular,
Appellants asserted Hunter’s “discussion of displaying to a user a system
state and history information associated with monitored equipment” does not
teach that such state or history information “is dependent on a first
parameter setting that is sent to the monitored equipment.” App. Br. 11.
Appellants rely on a similar argument with respect to claim 17. App. Br. 12.
Claim 17 does not require the display of a second parameter based on
a first parameter setting. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 17 and, therefore, do not persuade us
7
Appeal 2016-002322
Application 12/603,483
of error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon
for patentability).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 and the
rejection of claims 18—20, which depend therefrom and were not argued
separately. See App. Br. 12—13.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17—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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8