Ex Parte Pildner

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 5, 2014

11521707 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2014)

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. 11/521,707 09/15/2006 Reinhart Pildner F-TP-00075.1 (336-2070US) 1765 71543 7590 08/05/2014 GERALD M. BLUHM SENIOR PATENT AND TRADEMARK COUNSEL TYCO FIRE PROTECTION TYCO LAW DEPARTMENT 50 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE WESTMINSTER, MA 01441 EXAMINER JAMAL, ALEXANDER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/05/2014 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 REINHART PILDNER1 __________ Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 Technology Center 2600 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a telephone line communication interface module and to a security system comprising such a module. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-20 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 5). Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are representative and read as follows: 1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 2 1. A telephone line communication interface (TLCI) module configured to interface a security panel with a phone line of a phone network, the TLCI module comprising: a receive opto-coupler having a receive input side and a receive output side, the receive input side including a receive input line configured to receive a signal on the phone line from the phone network, the receive output side including a receive output line configured to convey the signal to a security panel; a transmit opto-coupler having a transmit input side and a transmit output side, the transmit input side having a transmit input line configured to receive transmit signals from the security panel, the transmit output side having a transmit output line configured to convey the transmit signal to the phone line of the phone network, the transmit output side being joined in parallel with the receive input side of the receive opto-coupler; and a hook control opto-coupler having a hook input side and a hook output side, the hook input side having a hook control line configured to receive a hook signal from the security panel, the hook output side having a hook input line and a hook output line, the hook output line activating a hook switch to convey the hook signal to the phone line of the phone network, the hook output side being joined serially with the receive input side of the receive opto-coupler. 2. The TLCI module of claim 1, further comprising an impedance matching network being interconnected with the receive input side of the receive opto-coupler and the transmit output side of the transmit opto- coupler, the impedance matching network configured to provide impedance matching with the phone network. 4. The TLCI module of claim 1, further comprising an impedance matching network comprising at least one resistor and one capacitor interconnected with one another, the impedance matching network being interconnected with the receive input side of the receive opto-coupler and the transmit output side of the transmit opto-coupler, the impedance matching network configured to provide impedance matching with the phone network. 5. The TLCI module of claim 1, the hook signal further comprising signals indicating on-hook and off-hook conditions, the TLCI module further comprising a high impedance DC load joined with the receive opto- Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 3 coupler and the hook control opto-coupler, the high impedance DC load being configured to draw a level of current indicating to the phone network when the hook signal is in the off-hook condition. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pildner (US 6,226,357 B1, May 1, 2001) in view of Norsworthy et al. (US 6,192,125 B1, Feb. 20, 2001) (Ans. 3). The Examiner relies on Pildner for disclosing “a control panel 300 for monitoring and communicating alarm conditions to a security monitoring station 310 via a set of components configured to isolate a microprocessor 420 of panel 300 to telephone line 302” (id. at 4). The Examiner finds: The interface components include, inter alia, a receive optocoupler 416, a transmit optocoupler 418 and a hook switch 15. . . . The optocouplers are wired in series. Microprocessor 420 issues both signals and off-hook commands to telephone line 302 using transmit optocoupler 418. In response to off-hook commands, transmit optocoupler 418 causes the transistor portion of the optocoupler to conduct current passing through the diode of receive optocoupler 416. This current is routed through resistor 30 to the base of hook switch 15, causing hook switch 15 to close a loop with the telephone line. (Id. at 5.) The Examiner relies on Norsworthy for disclosing “a system 10 for isolating a telephone line from a transceiver, such as a modem, while maintaining linearity between the line and the transceiver without complicated feedback circuits” (id.). The Examiner finds that “[s]ystem 10 achieves this result using parallel-connected receive and transmit optocouplers 11, 12 selected to have controller current transfer ratios” (id.). Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 4 The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Pildner’s control panel 300 to “separat[e] the functions of signal transmission and hook control, providing signal transmission with an optocoupler in parallel with receive optocoupler 416 and control of hook switch 15 with optocoupler 418” (id. at 6). In particular, the Examiner concludes: One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that Pildner and Norsworthy disclose similar systems for isolating a transceiver from a telephone line. Accordingly, one would have just as reasonably found the serial and parallel arrangements of optocouplers to be suitable alternatives in such systems. Based on these findings, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious substituting the parallel-coupled optocouplers of Norsworthy with the serial- coupled optocouplers of Pildner. One would have further found obvious such a substitution based on the suggestion of Norsworthy that the parallel-coupled optocouplers can maximize linearity. (Id. at 6.) In addition, the Examiner concludes: Since Norsworthy does not disclose a hook switch one would have had to make a choice concerning how to implement the hook switch of Pildner after substitution of the serial-coupled optocouplers with the parallel-coupled optocouplers. . . . [T]wo solutions to the hook switch question readily appear: (1) maintain the union between the transmit and hook control functions, or (2) leave the hook control in place while adding an extra optocoupler to implement transmit control in parallel with receive optocoupler 416. Of the two solutions, the latter appears to be simplest, and accordingly most likely in line with the skill of one of ordinary skill. In particular, the latter solution merely requires adding a transmit optocoupler, and appropriate biasing circuitry as disclosed by Norsworthy, in parallel with the already existing structure of Pildner. The former solution, however, would require elimination of Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 5 optocoupler 418 as well as the aforementioned addition of an optocoupler. The latter solution also commends itself to being the most obvious solution as optocoupler 418 has the further function of providing a TLM signal that is monitored in a loop configuration with receive optocoupler 416. . . . Thus, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious leaving transmit optocoupler 418 in place to provide hook control and TLM loop monitoring. (Id. at 7-8.) ANALYSIS Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s assertion “that it would be obvious to substitute the parallel-coupled optocouplers of Norsworthy with the serial-coupled optocouplers of Pildner to ‘maximize linearity’” (App. Br. 17). However, regardless of whether parallel-optocouplers would maximize linearity, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “found the serial and parallel arrangements of optocouplers to be suitable alternatives in such systems” (Ans. 6). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellant also argues that, “assuming arguendo that Pildner was modified to include a transmit optocoupler connected in [parallel] with a receive optocoupler, the device taught by Pildner would fail to perform its intended function” (App. Br. 19). Specifically, Appellant argues: [C]onnecting the transmit optocoupler in series with the receive optocoupler enables the transmit optocoupler to bias the receive optocoupler. However, connecting the transmit optocoupler in parallel with the receive optocoupler, as suggested in the Office Action, would prohibit the transmit optocoupler of Pildner from Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 6 providing a biasing current to the receive optocoupler. As a result, the device taught by Pildner would not be able to determine whether the telephone line is functioning properly by continuously monitoring the integrity of the telephone line. (Id.) We are not persuaded. Pildner’s transmit optocoupler has more than one function. In addition to providing the outgoing signal, it provides (a) a hook signal and (b) a telephone line monitoring (TLM) pulse (Pildner, Fig. 2A, col. 5, ll. 10- 55, & col. 7, ll. 9-65). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious to divide these functions among different optocouplers (Ans. 6). In combining the references, the Examiner proposes to leave optocoupler 418 in place (that is, in series with the receive optocoupler) so that it can be used to provide the hook signal and the TLM pulse, while adding another optocoupler in parallel with the receive optocoupler to provide the outgoing signal (Ans. 7-8 & 23). Thus, we do not agree with Appellant that the resulting device “would not be able to determine whether the telephone line is functioning properly by continuously monitoring the integrity of the telephone line” (App. Br. 19). Moreover, Pildner discloses that telephone line monitoring is “a preferred aspect of the invention” (Pildner, col. 2, ll. 40-42). Thus, even if the combination deleted this function, we do not agree that the device “would fail to perform its intended function” (App. Br. 19). In addition, Appellant “submits that the Office Action is impermissibly using the Appellant’s own disclosure as a blueprint to arrive Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 7 at the claimed invention, as evidenced by several signs” (id. at 20). In particular, Appellant argues: First, if one of skill in the art were to rearrange the optocouplers in Pildner so that they were connected in parallel as shown in Norsworthy, then such a person of ordinary skill would not think to add a hook control optocoupler to such a circuit because Norsworthy provides no teaching that a hook control optocoupler and/or a hook switch are required in an electrical isolation device having transmit and receive optocouplers connected in parallel. Second, because neither Pildner nor Norsworthy describe a hook control optocoupler that is utilized with parallel arranged optocouplers to operate a hook switch, the only suggestion for modifying Pildner to include the additional hook control optocoupler to operate the hook switch must have come from the Appellant’s own disclosure. (Id.) We are not persuaded. Norsworthy discloses a system “of providing electrical isolation between a telephone line and a connected device, such as a computer” (Norsworthy, Abstract). It is undisputed that Norsworthy’s system “achieves this result using parallel-connected receive and transmit optocouplers 11, 12 selected to have controller current transfer ratios” (Ans. 5). In the context of a security system, Pildner discloses the inclusion of a hook signal activating a hook switch, as well as a TLM pulse (Pildner, col. 5, ll. 10-55, & col. 7, ll. 9-65). Pildner discloses that the hook signal can be used to seize the telephone line and that the TLM pulse can be used to monitor whether the phone line is working properly (id.). Based on the Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 8 disclosures in Pildner, we conclude that it would have been obvious to include these functions in a parallel circuit, as described in Norsworthy. Pildner discloses including both of these functions with an optocoupler that is in series with the receive optocoupler (Pildner, col. 5, ll. 10-55, & col. 7, ll. 9-65) and, in fact, Appellant argues that the TLM function would not even work using an optocoupler that is in parallel with the receive optocoupler (App. Br. 19). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to include these functions using an optocoupler that is in series with the receive optocoupler, as described in Pildner (Ans. 7-8 & 24). Appellant additionally argues “that Pildner describes a current source not an impedance matching network as recited in Claim 2” (App. Br. 22). The Examiner provides a response to Appellant’s argument (Ans. 26-27). Appellant has not adequately explained why the Examiner’s position is incorrect. With regard to claim 4, Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner “fails to address the recitations regarding [the] impedance matching network including at least one resistor and one capacitor (App. Br. 23). However, in discussing the rejection of claim 2, the Examiner clearly identifies “the capacitor and resistor just to the right of the AC current arrow in FIG.2A” as providing impedance matching (Ans. 26). Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that the Examiner fails to address this recitation. With regard to claim 5, “Appellant submits that the transistor 25 does not draw a level of current indicating to the phone network when the hook Appeal 2012-003525 Application 11/521,707 9 signal is in the off-hook condition” (App. Br. 24). In response, the Examiner finds: [T]he description of transistor 25 in Pildner identifies a degree of cooperation between transistor 25 and transistor 15 (i.e., hook switch 15) in the active state. Specifically, when hook switch 15 is closed/active, current flows through transistor 25 to provide predefined voltage-current characteristics indicative of an active status. Pildner at col. 7 ll. 66-67, col. 8 ll. 1-7. On the other hand, when hook switch 15 is open/inactive, no current can flow because the path from transistor 25 to the phone line is interrupted. See id. at FIG.3D. (Ans. 28.) Appellant has not adequately explained why the Examiner’s position is in error. CONCLUSION The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 would have been obvious. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. Claims 3 and 6-20 have not been argued separately and therefore fall with claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED lp