Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2018

14065475 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2018)

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.
14/065,475 10/29/2013 JunSeong PARK H0039977 4341-35600 5906
14941 7590 01/18/2018
HONEYWELL/CONLEY ROSE
Honeywell International Inc
115 Tabor Road
PO Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
MAI, THIEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2887
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2018 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
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNSEONG PARK,
SANGHOON HUR, and HYUNGWOO BAEK
Appeal 2017-004746
Application 14/065,475
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3—8, and 11—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2017-004746
Application 14/065,475
Independent claim 1 generally illustrates the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
associating a unique coded identifier with each of a
plurality of detectors, wherein each detector of the plurality
of detectors transmits information to at least one server,
wherein the information comprises at least one
environmental parameter for a zone around each detector;
posting a representation of each unique coded
identifier at a respective location displaced from the
corresponding detector, wherein each respective location is
outside of the zone around the corresponding detector;
sensing, at the respective location, the representation
for a selected detector with a wireless device;
transmitting, from the wireless device, a request to the
at least one server in response to the sensed representation,
wherein the request comprises the unique coded identifier;
and
obtaining, from the at least one server at the wireless
device, the at least one environmental parameter for the
respective detector using the unique coded identifier, wherein
the at least one environmental parameter is obtained prior to
the wireless device entering the zone around the respective
detector.
Appellant1 (see generally App. Br.) requests review of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 11—20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Wedig (US 2015/0015401 Al, published
1 Honeywell International Inc. is the Applicant. Honeywell International
Inc. is also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2
Appeal 2017-004746
Application 14/065,475
January 15, 2015) and Whelihan (US 2013/0026220 Al, published
January 31, 2013). App. Br. 11; Final Act. 2.2
OPINION
Prior Art Rejections
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1, 3—8,
and 11—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner. We add the following for emphasis.
The subject matter of independent claim 1 is directed to a method of
monitoring outputs from fixed detectors wirelessly from locations displaced
from the detectors using wireless devices, such as smart phones. Spec. 11.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a complete statement of
the rejection. Final Act. 2-4.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Wedig teaches
a method to provide information wirelessly from detectors fixed in one or
more regions of interest to a server and using a barcode identifier associated
with the detector to contact the server through a user’s wireless device.
Final Act. 2—3; Wedig 12, 106, 110, 115, 119, Figure 7. Appellant also
does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Whelihan teaches using a
barcode associated with a piece of equipment placed at a given zone or
location to provide a wireless device with status information, including
2 The statement of rejection in the Final Action includes claims 2, 9, and 10
as one of the rejected claims. Final Act. 2. Appellant indicates that these
claims have been cancelled. App. Br. 5. Both the Examiner and Appellant
agree these claims are not subject to review on appeal. Ans. 2; App. Br. 5.
3
Appeal 2017-004746
Application 14/065,475
sensor values, about the piece of equipment where the information is
obtained from a server. Final Act. 3-A; Whelihan H 6, 7, 11, 12, 22, 29,
claim 1, Figures 3 A-4. Instead, Appellant argues that the combined
teachings of the cited art do not teach the placement of the coded identifier
at a location outside of the zone around the corresponding detector as
claimed. App. Br. 12—15. According to Appellant, Wedig’s simple
placement of the identification code on a card provided inside the packaging
or on a user manual does not teach the posting of the code at any location.
Id. at 14.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s determination that Wedig’s disclosure of the code identifier
being provided on a card or manual suggests placement of the barcode at a
location displaced from the associated detector. Ans. 2—5. Further, as noted
by the Examiner {id. at 4), one skilled in the art would have reasonably
expected that a user desirous of obtaining information (environmental
parameter or status) from an associated sensor node using a coded identifier
would have placed the coded identifier at a location where it is readily
accessible to access the server through that code identifier to obtain the
desired information, including a location that is outside of the zone around
the associated detector. In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.”). Appellant has not adequately explained why one
skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have
been capable of determining the best location for the placement of the code
identifier to obtain the desired information. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
4
Appeal 2017-004746
Application 14/065,475
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the
art); In reBozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the proposed
modification of Wedig and Whelihan to place an identifier outside of a zone
being monitored by a detector would render Wedig inoperable for its
intended purpose (App. Br. 15—17; Wedig 1119) for the reasons discussed
above.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and
11—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner
and given above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 11—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
5