Ex Parte Ha et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201512265304 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/265,304 11/05/2008 Wai-leung Ha 011398.00060 1888 22908 7590 05/01/2015 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. TEN SOUTH WACKER DRIVE SUITE 3000 CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WAI-LEUNG HA, WANCHAI, KAIRY KAI LEI, and HAO-HUI HUANG ____________ Appeal 2013-002287 Application 12/265,304 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosure relates to “apparatuses and computer readable media for obtaining information about a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system.” Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2013-002287 Application 12/265,304 2 1. An apparatus comprising: a control circuit configured to control a first load of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system; a sampling circuit configured to apply a test signal to a first output terminal, wherein the first output terminal corresponds to the first load; and a processor configured to: instruct the control circuit to deactivate the first load for an operational HVAC mode; instruct the sampling circuit to apply the test signal to the first output terminal when the first load is deactivated; determine whether the first load is connected to the first output terminal based on a first resulting signal caused by the test signal; and determine a HVAC type of the HVAC system based on whether the first load is connected to the first output terminal. Claims 1–8 and 11–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harrod (US 2010/0076605 A1; Mar. 25, 2010) and Kore (US 7,986,701 B2; July 26, 2011). Final Action 2. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harrod, Kore, and Kopel (US 2005/0109764 A1; May 26, 2005). Final Action 6. ISSUES Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues: A. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Harrod and Kore teaches or suggests determining “whether the first load is connected” (emphasis added), as recited in independent claim 1? See App. Br. 17–18. Appeal 2013-002287 Application 12/265,304 3 B. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Harrod and Kore teaches or suggests applying a test signal when the first load is deactivated, as required by independent claim 1? See App. Br. 18–20. C. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Harrod and Kore teaches or suggests instructing “the sampling circuit to apply the test signal to the first output terminal when a control relay is an off-state,” as recited in dependent claims 11, 18, and 24? See App. Br. 27–29. ANALYSIS We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see Final Action 2–6, Ans. 2–6) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Whether the First Load is Connected Regarding the above Issue A, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding the cited art teaches or suggests a system to “determine an HVAC type . . . based on whether the first load is connected,” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 17. Particularly, Appellants contend Harrod “can only determine the HVAC type when a response message is received from control devices . . . [c]onsequently, control circuits 46 and 48 must be connected . . . to determine the type of HVAC unit . . . .” App. Br. 18. Appeal 2013-002287 Application 12/265,304 4 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds “Harrod teaches a HVAC system in which a ping is sent out to discover” what loads are connected to the system. Ans. 2 citing Harrod ¶ 33. Further, Harrod discloses that, in response to the ping message, “control circuit 46 may transmit a signal to control device 22 indicating that it controls a two- stage heat pump.” Harrod ¶ 33, see also Final Action 3. Thus, the Examiner finds Harrod’s “ping message” allows for a determination of HVAC type based on whether loads are controlled by (i.e., connected to) the system and able to provide response information. See Ans. 2–3. We agree with the Examiner that the claim limitation “determine a HVAC type . . . based on whether the first load is connected” encompasses Harrod’s determination of HVAC type based on information received from connected loads. Id. That is, because Harrod’s disclosure of pinging the HVAC system allows the user to determine the HVAC type based on whether a load is connected to the system, we are satisfied that such connection status of the load teaches the disputed limitations. Further, Appellants’ arguments with respect to Harrod alone constitute an individual attack against the Harrod reference. The Examiner rejects claim 1 based on the combination of Harrod with Kore, finding “Kore teaches using a discovery signal to determine if an HVAC element is connected.” Final Action 3, citing Kore Fig. 5 (showing a device discovery procedure). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references”). Accordingly, the Examiner's findings with respect to how the proposed combination of Appeal 2013-002287 Application 12/265,304 5 Harrod and Kore teaches the disputed limitations are unrebutted, and we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. See Final Action 3–4. B. When the First Load is Deactivated Regarding the above Issue B, Appellants argue Harrod teaches away from discovering deactivated loads, and Kore does not teach or suggest discovering HVAC loads. App. Br. 19–20. Therefore, Appellants contend that “Harrod and Kore, either individually or in combination, fail to suggest the [claim 1] feature of ‘instruct the sampling circuit to apply the test signal to the first output terminal when the first load [of an HVAC system] is deactivated.’” App. Br. 18. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Regarding Harrod’s teachings, although we agree with Appellants that Harrod teaches activated “control circuits” (App. Br. 20), the Examiner finds the claimed “first load” to be taught by the heat pump of Harrod (See Final Action 2–3, Ans. 4, Harrod ¶ 33). 1 Thus, the activated status of Harrod’s control circuits is unrelated to the activated status of the load itself (e.g., the heat pump), and the Examiner finds that one skilled in the art would deactivate a load (such as the heat pump) before sending a test signal, to prevent controlling an unknown load. See Ans. 4–5. Appellants respond that “there are numerous ways of activating (turning on) a load without knowing what the load properties are.” Reply Br. 4, See also App. Br. 20. We do not find 1 The Federal Circuit has held “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed.Cir.1994) Appeal 2013-002287 Application 12/265,304 6 Appellants’ argument persuasive, however, as providing alternative methods for activation does not rebut the Examiner’s specific finding that one skilled in the art would deactivate a load in the system of Harrod, “so that the controller can properly operate the HVAC loads.” Ans. 3. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Kore teaches the deactivated load that is suggested by Harrod, because “Kore . . . shows that a controller can send discovery signals (ping) to loads that allow for a list to be updated based on new devices that are online and old loads that are off-line (col. 8 lines 15–24).” Ans. 3, see also Kore col. 4, ll. 21–25 and col. 15, ll. 18–36. The Examiner finds that one skilled in the art would modify the HVAC system of Harrod with the deactivated-device discovery system of Kore, to create a system that applies test signals to deactivated loads. See Final Act. 3–4, citing Kore col. 4, ll. 51–56. Appellants have not shown how the combination of Harrod and Kore do not send test signals to deactivated HVAC loads as required by claim 1; accordingly we do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection. C. When a Control Relay is An Off-State Regarding the above Issue C, Appellants argue “the combination of Harrod and Kore fails to suggest the feature of ‘subsequently instruct the sampling circuit to apply the test signal to the first output terminal when a control relay is an off-state.’ (Emphasis added)” as required by dependent claim 11. App. Br. 27. Dependent claims 18 and 24 recite similar limitations. See App. Br. 28–29. The Examiner responds by finding: Harrod . . . teaches that most HVAC systems use[] relays to operate the HVAC system [0003]. That is, relays can be used to switch a load from active to inactive (off) and that a Appeal 2013-002287 Application 12/265,304 7 discovery signal is then sent to that load. Therefore, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the test signal can be sent to the first output terminal while a control relay somewhere within the system is open. In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to the contrary, the Examiner’s response is reasonable and we find no reversible error with respect to claims 11, 18, and 24. CONCLUSION Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 11, 18, and 24. Regarding the rejections of independent claims 12 and 19, Appellants have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above. App. Br. 20–27. Appellants further argue that Kopel, cited additionally in the rejection of dependent claims 9 and 10, does not overcome the deficiencies of Harrod and Kore, but do not otherwise argue these claims with particularity. App. Br. 29. Remaining dependent claims 2–8, 13–17, and 20–23 are not separately argued. Accordingly we sustain the rejection of claims 1–24. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 cjr Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation