Ex Parte Hoglund et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

11733004 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
11/733,004 04/09/2007 Steven R. Hoglund H0014602-1161.1289101 7426
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, 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 STEVEN R. HOGLUND, JIAN HUANG,
and TONY LIU
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,0041
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
The claimed invention relates generally to HVAC equipment and more
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Honeywell International,
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
particularly to zone control panels for controlling HVAC equipment. Spec.
1: 6-7.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized.
1. A zone control panel for controlling a zoned HV AC
system, the zone control panel having a user interface and two
or more modes, the zone control panel comprising:
a display;
a mode selector for selecting between the two or more
modes including a configuration mode in which one or more
configuration parameters of the zone control panel can be set
and a check out mode in which connections between the zone
control panel and the zoned HV AC system can be checked, the
mode selector being separate and laterally spaced from the
display;
a mode indicator separate from the display for providing
a visual indication of the selected mode; and
a controller configured to control two or more zones of
the zoned HV AC system, the controller coupled to the mode
selector, the mode indicator and the display, the controller
configured to advance through and display a first sequence of
two or more menu screens on the display when the mode
selector selects the configuration mode, and advance through
and display a second sequence of two or more menu screens on
the display, which is different from the first sequence of two or
more screens, when the mode selector selects the check out
mode.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 7—10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bryant (“Installation and Start-Up
Instructions Evolution™ Control” Thermidistat Control,TSTAT pp. 1—
12 (August 1999)), Wagner et al. (US 2008/0048046 Al; published Feb. 28,
2008), and AquaAir. (Aqua-Air Marine Air Conditioning Systems” Aqua-
2
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
Air Tempwise 2001 Direct Expansion Digital Thermostat, Operating
Manual, pp. 1—31, (Jan. 14, 2004)).
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bryant, Wagner, AquaAir, and Foster.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bryant, Wagner, AquaAir, Foster, and Peterson (US 2003/0028271 Al,
published Feb. 6, 2003).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bryant, Wagner, AquaAir, and DeFuca (US 2005/0098639 Al,
published May 12, 2005).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bryant, Wagner, AquaAir, and Wacker (US 6,851,621 Bl,
issued Feb. 8, 2005).
Claims 13, 15—20, 24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bryant, Wagner, and Foster US 5,181,653, issued
Jan. 26, 1993).
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bryant, Wagner, Foster, and Helt (US 7,228,693 B2,
issued Jun. 12,2007).
Claims 21—23, 26, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bryant and Wagner.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bryant, Wagner, and DeFuca.
3
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 1,
because the combination of Bryant, Wagner, and AquaAir fails to teach or
suggest:
a controller configured to control two or more zones of the
zoned HV AC system, the controller coupled to the mode
selector, the mode indicator and the display, the controller
configured to advance through and display a first sequence of
two or more menu screens on the display when the mode
selector selects the configuration mode, and advance through
and display a second sequence of two or more menu screens on
the display, which is different from the first sequence of two or
more screens, when the mode selector selects the check out
mode.
App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2—8. Appellants argue that the “zones” referred
to in Wagner do not correspond to HVAC zones as would be understood by
those skilled in the art. App. Br. 11. Appellants also argue that because one
of Wagner’s “zones” is located outdoors, it cannot be considered a zone of
an HVAC system. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Wagner teaches an
4
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
HVAC system in which multiple zones exist and the user can use the
thermostat to send control signals to remote devices within each of the zones
of the building. Ans. 2 (citing Wagner || 8—9, 64). The Examiner explains
that although Wagner’s Zone 1 does appear to be outside, Zone 1 is merely
an example and the user could alter the local environment temperatures
within the other zones in the house. Ans. 3 (citing Wagner || 8—9, 64; see
Fig. 1). We note that Wagner’s Figure 1 shows additional zones (e.g., Zone
2 and Zone 3), that are located inside the building. Furthermore, Wagner
explains, with respect to Figure 1, that “remote devices in communication
with the thermostat 12 may include a plurality of sensors 38, 40, 42 located
in or proximate to the building 10. In order to collect the temperature and
humidity data throughout the system, the temperature/humidity sensors 38-
42 are strategically located in different zones.” Wagner 138. As shown in
Figure 1, temperature/humidity sensors 38 and 40 are located in Zone 2,
while the thermostat 12 is located in Zone 1. Wagner Fig. 1.
Appellants also argue that the particular order of screens taught by
Bryant appear to be determined by the user, and therefore, Bryant does not
teach a controller that is configured to advance through the menu screens of
the display as claimed. App. Br. 15. The Examiner finds, however, and we
agree, Bryant teaches a sequence of menus programmed into a controller.
Ans. 5—6. For example, the Examiner finds the sequence of screens for
accessing the OFFSETS parameter adjustment includes moving through the
INSTAFF/SERVICE menu, the SETUP menu, and the
SETUP=THERMOSTAT menu before reaching the OFFSETS menu screen.
Ans. 6. The Examiner explains, and we agree, that merely because a user
may play a role in selecting or scrolling through Bryant’s menu screens does
5
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
not mean that Bryant does not teach a sequence of menu screens
programmed into a controller. Ans. 5.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred finding the
combination of Bryant, Wagner, and AquaAir teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1.
Independent Claim 21
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 21
because the combination of Bryant and Wagner does not teach or suggest
“sequentially scrolling through a programmed sequence of the two or more
distinct menu screens using one or more first buttons that are distinct and
spaced from the mode selector,” as recited in that claim. App. Br. 18—20.
Appellants argue that Bryant teaches a hierarchal menu structure where the
installer or user navigates the menu items in any desired order or sequence,
which is selected on the fly by the user. Id. at 18. Appellants argue that
Bryant’s menu screens are accessed in an order that is determined by the
user and, thus, are not a sequential programmed sequence. Id. at 19.
The Examiner points out, however, and we agree, the claim does not
state that the sequence of menu screens must be in a fixed order. Ans. 9.
The claim only recites sequentially scrolling through a programmed
sequence of two or more distinct menu screens. The Examiner notes that
Appellants seem to think the sequence has to be completely fixed. Ans. 9.
Appellants, however, do not point to any evidence in the Specification to
support such an interpretation.
Appellants also argue that Bryant does not teach or suggest using one
or more first buttons that are distinct and spaced from the mode selector.
6
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
App. Br. 19-20. Appellants argues that Bryant uses the same scrolling (up
and down) button to select both a mode (e.g., install, setup, checkout, etc., as
shown in Figure 20 of Bryant) and a menu screen. Id. The Examiner finds,
however, and we agree, Bryant’s mode selector and first buttons (e.g.,
“Basic,” “Advanced,” “Left-Side Button,” and “Right-Side Button”) are
distinct and spaced. Ans. 10 (citing Bryant Fig. 11).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Bryant and Wagner teaches or suggests “sequentially
scrolling through a programmed sequence of the two or more distinct menu
screens using one or more first buttons that are distinct and spaced from the
mode selector,” as recited in claim 21. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection.
Independent Claim 13
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 13
because the combination of Bryant, Wagner, and Foster does not teach or
suggest “a mode indicator that provides confirmation of the selected user
interface mode,” as recited in that claim. App. Br. 22—25. Appellants argue
that Bryant does not appear to provide any indication of whether the basic or
the advanced setup has been selected. App. Br. 22. Appellants assert there
does not appear to be a mode indicator that provides confirmation of the
selected mode (e.g., advanced mode). Id. At best, Appellants argue, Bryant
appears to disclose that the display shows which menu option within the
advanced setup mode has been selected. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Bryant teaches that when
the ADVANCED button is held the advanced menu is presented to the user.
Ans. 11 (citing Bryant p. 7, Fig. 20). The Examiner explains that at the top
7
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
of the Figure is a title (INSTALL/SERVICE), which is synonymous with
ADVANCED and is also read as the configuration mode of the Appellants'
claims. Id. The Examiner finds that pressing and holding the ADVANCED
button only displays this menu, and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art
would equate the ADVANCED mode with the INSTALL/SERVICE menu,
which is considered the recited configuration mode. Id.
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13
because Bryant fails to teach or suggest “a display for displaying a
programmed sequence of two or more menu screens on the display,” as
recited in claim 13. However, for the reasons discussed above with respect
to claim 1, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred finding the
combination of Bryant, Wagner, and Foster teaches or suggests “a mode
indicator that provides confirmation of the selected user interface mode,
[and] a display for displaying a programmed sequence of two or more menu
screens on the display,” as recited in independent claim 13. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Improper Combination
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in combining Bryant, Wagner,
and Foster. App. Br. 12—15, 23—24. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
rationale for combining Bryant and Wagner, i.e., that one of ordinary skill in
the art would be motivated to combine Bryant and Wagner because the
combination would provide a user with more flexibility and versatility in
controlling an HVAC system, is insufficient to support a conclusion of
obviousness. Id. at 13. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s rational
for adding Foster, i.e., that Foster teaches a thermostat that can use a desired
8
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
temperature to hold a zone temperature for a period of time without the need
to reprogram the entire HVAC schedule, is also insufficient. Id. at 24.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s proposed modifications extend
well beyond what is fairly taught by the combined art. Id. We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, combining Wagner and Bryant
increases the flexibility and versatility of Bryant’s system and methods.
Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that this would allow a user not only to monitor
multiple zones within a house, but to also control individual zones. Id. The
Examiner explains, for example, that such a combination allows multiple
users to select individual temperatures for a room or zone that they are in or
will be in. Id. The Examiner further explains that it also allows a user to
remotely operate devices within a zone, which reduces a user’s time when
controlling multiple devices because the user does not have to go to each
device/zone to control it, as the devices can be centrally controlled. Id. We
also agree with the sufficiency of the Examiner’s express rationale for
combining Foster with Bryant and Wagner. See Final Act. 11.
With respect to the sufficiency of the teachings, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, both Bryant and Wagner explain in detail the programming
and the features that are required for their systems. Ans. 4 (citing Bryant pp.
6—11, Figs. 18—25; Wagner || 7—14, 61—64). The Examiner finds similarly
with respect to Foster. Ans. 12 (citing Foster 2:35—54; cols. 3—5). We are,
therefore, not persuaded that combining the respective elements of the cited
references in the manner proffered by the Examiner would be “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
9
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner erred in combining Bryant, Wagner, and Foster.
Dependent Claims 2—12, 14—20, and 22—29
Appellants have not presented separate arguments with respect to
certain dependent claims. See, e.g., App. Br. 9—28 (claims 2, 7—9, 15—20,
22—23, 26, and 27). In some instances, Appellants have not presented
substantive or persuasive arguments with respect to certain dependent
claims. In some instances, Appellants merely assert the same arguments
previously made for other claims, or note the limitations recited in a
particular claim and assert that the cited art does not teach or suggest the
recited limitations, or simply assert that the combination of prior art is
somehow deficient. In other instances, Appellants merely rely on the
dependency of the claim and assert patentability because of such
dependency. Such unsupported assertions, however, do not sufficiently
constitute separate issues of patentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2014); In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude
that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to
articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to
be treated separately.”). Nonetheless, we have considered each of
Appellants’ arguments presented with respect to the dependent claims, in
particular dependent claims 3—6, 10-12, 14, 24, 25, 28, and 29. We are,
however, not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments of error and accept the
Examiner’s findings with respect to these claims. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—12, 14—20, and 22—29.
10
Appeal 2014-000714
Application 11/733,004
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—29.
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
11