Ex Parte Hoglund et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 201711733004 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation