Ex Parte Potineni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2017

13415562 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 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.
13/415,562 03/08/2012 Rajesh Chandra Potineni H0030183-HON10513P00700US 1262
93730 7590 10/10/2017
HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
GAO, JING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2017 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):
ksanderson@woodphillips.com
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docketing @ woodphillips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJESH CHANDRA POTINENI, JOE BEN ALPHONSE,
and BINEESH AV
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—11 and 13—20, which are all the claims pending in this
application. Claim 12 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal is directed to “systems
and methods for helping personnel to evacuate buildings and/or other
facilities during an emergency situation.” (Spec. |4).
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
Representative Claim
1. A system for providing a guided emergency exit to
personnel within a building, the system comprising:
[LI] a plurality of wireless transceivers located at
checkpoints spaced throughout the building, the checkpoints
connected by paths that can be navigated by personnel in the
building to exit the building;
[L2] a plurality of handheld wireless communication
devices, each communication device including a visual display
and being assigned to a person within the building; and
[L3] a central server in operable association with the
wireless transceivers to communicate information to and from
each of the communication devices via the wireless transceivers,
the server being configured to determine the location of each
communication device within the building in the case of an
emergency and to communicate a sequential set of visual images
of an escape route via the wireless transceivers to each of the
communication devices to lead the person carrying the
communication device from checkpoint to checkpoint along the
escape route until the person exits the building.
(Contested limitations LI, L2, and L3 bracketed and emphasized).
Rejections
A. Claims 1, 3—7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Cai et al. (US 2013/0103309 Al; Apr. 25, 2013)
(hereinafter “Cai”), in view of Mendelson (US 2009/0138353 Al; May
28, 2009).
B. Claims 2, 8, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Cai, Mendelson, and Morrey et al. (US
2010/0167687 Al; July 1, 2010), hereinafter “Morrey.”
2
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
Grouping of Claims under Rejection A
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of
independent representative claims 1 and 13 separately. Using our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we group representative claim 1 with
associated dependent claims 3, 5—7, and 9-11. We group representative
independent claim 13 with associated dependent claims 15, 17, and 18. We
group representative dependent claim 4 with dependent claim 20.
Grouping of Claims under Rejection B
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we group representative
dependent claim 2 with dependent claims 14 and 19. We address separately
argued dependent claims 8 and 16, infra. To the extent Appellants have not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence
presented. With the exception of the Examiner’s rejection B of dependent
claims 8 and 16 (reversed infra), we disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and legal conclusions set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken, and
(2) the findings, legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer
in response to Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
3
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
Rejection A of Independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Issue: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by
finding the cited combination of Cai and Mendelson would have taught or
suggested contested limitations LI, L2, and L3, within the meaning of
representative claim l?1 (Emphasis added).
Regarding the contested limitations of claim 1, Appellants contend,
inter alia:
First, the rejection errs in attempting to rely on Cai for
these structures and steps by mischaracterizing the sensors 300
of Cai as being transceivers, when in fact the sensors are not
transceivers but are sensors to detect a hazard with no disclosed
capabilities as a transceiver that can receive and relay
instructions. Second, the sensors 300 of Cai are not located at
checkpoints or corresponding to checkpoints as recited in the
rejected claims and explained in detail in the application. Third,
Cai does not include a central server that is configured “to
communicate a sequential set of visual images of an escape route
via the wireless transceivers to each of the communication
devices to lead the person carrying the communication device
from checkpoint to checkpoint along the escape route, as recited
in claim 1.
(App. Br. 4—5) (emphasis added, underlining omitted).
Regarding Appellants’ first contention that “the sensors are not
transceivers but are sensors to detect a hazard with no disclosed capabilities
as a transceiver that can receive and relay instructions'’'’ (App. Br. 4,
1 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See, e.g., Spec. 137: “no limitation to
specific details is intended unless specifically recited in an appended claim.”
(Emphasis added).
4
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
emphasis added), we find Appellants are attacking the references in
isolation.2 We emphasize the Examiner relies on the combination of Cai and
Mendelson for teaching or suggesting the contested plurality of wireless
transceivers located at checkpoints. (Final Act. 9—10).
The Examiner finds Cai teaches sensors located at checkpoints:
a plurality of wireless transceivers [i.e., sensors] located at
checkpoints spaced throughout the building (Paragraph 0014;
plurality of sensors are located throughout the rooms and
hallways in a building), the checkpoints connected by paths that
can be navigated by personnel in the building to exit the
building (Figures 2, 3 and Paragraphs 0012 and 0013; the
rooms and hallways in the building are connected in the
recommended route to guide the user of the portable device in
the building to exit the building);
(Final Act. 9, emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Mendelson’s Bluetooth “notifier” device, which
may be located in various locations within a building (Mendelson, Figure 1;
paragraphs 97, 138, 150, and 160), when combined with Cai’s sensors 300
(Cai Figure 1), would have taught or suggested the claimed “plurality of
wireless transceivers located at checkpoints spaced throughout the
building, the checkpoints connected by paths that can be navigated by
personnel in the building to exit the building,” within the meaning of
claim 1. (emphasis added). We note Mendelson’s system of Bluetooth-
based notifications pushes “real time emergency notification to the
proximity people’s mobile phone—without [using a] cellular network . . . .”
Mendelson 197.
2 See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references.).
5
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
Appellants’ second contention urges that the “sensors 300 of Cai are
not located at checkpoints or corresponding to checkpoints as recited in the
rejected claims and explained in detail in the application.'1'’ (App. Br. 4—5,
emphasis omitted, italics added).
However, we note Cai’s Figure 2 depicts sensor icons S which
“represent the sensors 300 disposed on the floor plan F.” (Cai 115). As
discussed above, Mendelson’s Bluetooth “notifier” device may be located in
various locations within a building (Mendelson, Figure 1; paragraphs 97,
138, 150, and 160). Given this evidence, we conclude the Examiner’s
proffered combination of Cai’s sensors with Mendelson’s Bluetooth
“notifier” transceivers renders obvious the contested “plurality of wireless
transceivers located at checkpoints,” within the meaning of claim 1.
We decline Appellants’ invitation to read unspecified argued “details”
from the Specification into the claims (See App. Br. 5,1. 1, i.e., as
“explained in detail in the application.”).3 Moreover, Appellants have not
pointed to a definition of “checkpoints” in the Specification that would
preclude the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation. See n.l, supra.
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s broader
reading of the contested “wireless transceivers located at checkpoints” is
overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.4
3 Our reviewing “court has repeatedly ‘cautioned against limiting the
claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the
specification.’” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346-47
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d
1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
4 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
6
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
Regarding Appellants’ third contention that “Cai does not include a
central server that is configured ‘to communicate a sequential set of visual
images of an escape route via the wireless transceivers to each of the
communication devices” (Reply Br. 2), we note Cai expressly teaches “[t]he
emergency guiding server 10 [(Figure 1)] transmits a guiding signal Sg . . .
including the recommended route R to the portable device 20.” Cai 113.
Further, Cai’s Figure 1 expressly depicts route providing unit 13 as an
integral part of emergency guiding server 10. Cai describes: “The route
providing unit 13 produces a recommended route R (see FIG. 2) to reach a
particular target such as an exit” (Cai 112). “As shown in FIG. 5, the
display unit 22 of the portable device 20 displays a warning message Mw
when the way which the portable device 20 moves [does] not correspond^
to the recommended route R in the guiding signal Sg.” (Cai, 117).
Thus, we find the recited “sequence set of visual images of an escape
route” (claim 1) would have been taught or suggested by at least Cai’s
Figures 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, and 5, and associated descriptions, including the
similar visual images of an escape route, as depicted in Mendelson’s Figures
2, 4, and 6. Mendelson expressly describes (123):
Moreover by using the known position of the Bluetooth
beacons and because the signal of the Bluetooth beacons can be
set between 5-10 m getting a signal from the beacon can
establish accuracy of 5-10 m level. [0]ur system [was]
develop[ed] to identify and navigate to the recommended
exit route[.] The system will provide building occupants help
to exit a building safely and efficiently as well with the real­
time critical information alarming notification emergency
procedure and how to exit to safety.
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted).
7
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
(emphasis added).
We further conclude, under BRI, that the recited “sequential set of
visual images of an escape route” (claim 1) (which appear on a
communication device such as a mobile phone), is directed to subject matter
merely intended for human perception.5 Thus, we find the particular real­
time informational content of the visual data presented to a user (e.g., a
recommended escape route displayed on a screen) does not change or
further limit the structure of the apparatus of system claim 1, because such
data is non-functional descriptive material (NFDM).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence (claim 1). Because
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain rejection A
of independent claim 1. The remaining associated grouped dependent
claims 3, 5—7, and 9-11 (not argued separately) fall with representative
claim 1, under rejection A. See Grouping of Claims, supra.
5 See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)
(“[T]he nature of the information being manipulated does not lend
patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or
process.”). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) guides:
“where the claim as a whole is directed [to] conveying a message or
meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system,
and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for
information or data, no functional relationship exists.” MPEP § 2111.05
(III.) (9th Ed., Rev. 07.2015, Last Revised Nov. 2015).
8
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
Rejection A of Independent Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Issue: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by
finding the cited combination of Cai and Mendelson would have taught or
suggested the contested “wherein” clause limitation:
wherein the step of wirelessly transmitting comprises
sequentially transmitting the sequential series of images from
wireless transceivers corresponding to the checkpoints,
each transceiver transmitting one of the images corresponding
to a path from the checkpoint corresponding to the transceiver
to the next checkpoint along the escape route[,]
within the meaning of representative claim 13? 6 (Emphasis added).
Although Appellants urge (App. Br. 5) neither Cai nor Mendelson
teach “each transceiver transmitting one of the images corresponding to a
path from the checkpoint corresponding to the transceiver to the next
checkpoint along the escape route” (claim 1), we find the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness (Final
Act. 9-10) are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, for essentially
the same reasons discussed above regarding independent claim 1.
We further find such transmission from each Bluetooth transceiver of
“one of the images corresponding to a path from the checkpoint
corresponding to the transceiver to the next checkpoint along the escape
route” would have merely realized a predictable result. See KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). Moreover, “the question under 35
[U.S.C.] § 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what
6 See n.l, supra.
9
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d
804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); see also MPEP
§2123. (Emphasis added, citation and quotation marks omitted)
This guidance is applicable here. Because Appellants have not
persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain rejection A of independent
claim 13. The remaining associated grouped dependent claims 15, 17, and
18 fall with representative claim 13, under rejection A. See Grouping of
Claims, supra.
Rejection B of Representative Dependent Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dependent claim 2 recites:
The system of claim 1 wherein the central server is configured
to determine a location of each of the communication devices
based upon which one of the transceivers is communicating
wirelessly with the communication device, to communicate a
visual image of the sequential set based on the determined
location via the one of the transceivers to the communication
device, and to communicate a new visual image from the
sequence via another one of the transceivers to the
communication device in response to the one of the wireless
transceivers losing the ability to communicate wirelessly with
the communication device.
(Emphasis added).
Appellants contend, inter alia:
the Examiner fails to provide any explanation or rationale as to
how paragraphs [0026], [0055], [0063], and [0081] show or
suggest the steps and structure that are clearly missing from Cai
and Mendelson .... That Morrey “teaches the hub transceiver
has a GPS to determine its location” and that "if the native hub
transceiver is not available, the RMT communicate with other
10
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
available hub transceivers" is completely irrelevant to the above
missing structure and steps recited in the rejected claims.
(App. Br. 7-8).
In response, the Examiner emphasizes the rejection is based on the
combined teachings and suggestions of Cai, Mendelson, and Morrey. (Ans.
7—8). We note Appellants’ arguments essentially focus on Morrey. (App.
Br. 7-8).
However, Mendelson (121) teaches “[bjecause the system knows the
Bluetooth beacon positions, and the distance between them [], it is easy to
determine the ‘user’s’ exact location.”
Morrey (1 55) further teaches a Remote Monitoring Transmitter
(RMT 18) “is selectively operable to serve as a hub transceiver 16 with
respect to other RMTs of the system 10 in the event the hub transceiver to
which the RMT should transmit and receive data (otherwise known as the
native hub transceiver) is unavailable.” (emphasis added). Cf. with “one of
the wireless transceivers losing the ability to communicate wirelessly with
the communication device.’ '' Claim 2.
Given this evidence, we find the Examiner’s proffered combination of
Cai, Mendelson, and Morrey would have at least suggested the contested
features of claim 2 to an artisan at the time of the invention. See Merck, 874
F.2d at 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and legal
conclusion of obviousness regarding representative claim 2. Accordingly,
we sustain rejection B of claim 2, and rejection B of claims 14 and 19 (not
11
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
argued separately), which fall with representative claim 2. See Grouping of
Claims, supra.
Rejection A of Representative Dependent Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dependent claim 4 recites: “The system of claim 3 wherein the central
server is further configured to communicate a message to the
communication device urging the person assigned to the communication
device to hurry as long as the one of the wireless transceivers is able to
communicate with the communication device.” (Emphasis added).
Dependent claim 20 recites the contested “hurry” limitation in similar,
commensurate form.
Appellants contend neither paragraph 17 of Cai (teaching a warning)
nor paragraph 63 of Mendelson (teaching a siren) teaches or suggests
“urging the person assigned to the communication device to hurry,” as
recited in both dependent claims 4 and 20. (App. Br. 6) (Emphasis added).
In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer (6), the
Examiner points to Mendelson’s “notifier” device (| 97), and restates the
basis for the rejection: “the warning message as taught by Cai may be
modified by Mendelson to repeat the warning messages to the user of the
portable device to warn the user to stay on the recommended guiding route
to hurry the user to exit the unsafe area.” (Ans. 6; Final Act. 12) (emphasis
added).
After reviewing the record, we find the Examiner’s proffered
combination of Cai and Mendelson (waming/notifier/siren) at least suggests
urging a person the hurry along the designated escape route. See Merck, 874
F.2d at 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, we find a preponderance of the
12
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and legal
conclusion of obviousness regarding representative claim 4. Accordingly,
we sustain rejection A of claim 4, and rejection A of claim 20, which falls
with claim 4. See Grouping of Claims, supra.
Rejection B of Dependent Claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 8 recites: “The system of claim 1 wherein the central server is
configured to disable the transceivers along an escape route in response to an
indication that the escape route is no longer viable.”
Claim 16 recites similar language, in pertinent part: “automatically
disabling wireless transceivers ... in response to an indication that the
escape route for the one of the communication devices is no longer viable.”
In support of rejection B of claims 8 and 16, the Examiner relies on
Morrey: “(Paragraphs 0026, 0055, 0063 and 0081; if the native hub
transceiver is not available, the RMT communicate with other available hub
transceivers).” (Final Act. 16).
Appellants contend:
Morrey teaches that “if the native hub transceiver is not
available, the RMT communicate with other available hub
transceivers” does not in any way explain how Morrey shows
or suggests any of the above missing structure and steps recited
in claims 8 and 16. In fact, this assertion by the Examiner is
completely irrelevant to the missing structure and steps and
does nothing to overcome the failings of Cai, Mendelson, and
Morrey taken alone or together.
(App.Br. 17).
We have reviewed paragraphs 26, 55, 63, and 81 of Morrey, and we
find a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ contentions
regarding claims 8 and 16 (id.), in pertinent part: “disabling] the
13
Appeal 2017-002267
Application 13/415,562
transceivers along an escape route in response to an indication that the
escape route is no longer viable.” (Claim 8). We find the Examiner has not
fully developed the record to show such responsive disabling of transceivers
along an escape route, in the manner claimed. (Claims 8, 16). Accordingly,
for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants (App. Br. 17), we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection B of dependent claims 8 and 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 9—11, 13—15,
and 17—20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 16 under
pre-AIA 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)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
14