Ex Parte Richards et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2017

13285280 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 13/285,280 10/31/2011 David M. Richards INGE-054 US DIVIO 5834 136189 7590 04/03/2017 The Salerno Law Firm, P.C. - Ingersoll Rand 1955 Deer Park Avenue Deer Park, NY 11729 EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2126 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2017 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): docketing @ salernolaw .com US PTO @ dockettrak. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID M. RICHARDS and SEAN M. MCCOY Appeal 2014-008606 Application 13/285,2801 Technology Center NUMBER Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify The Trane Company as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2014-008606 Application 13/285,280 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to building automation systems (BAS) architectures. Spec. 1:10—12. The Specification explains that building automation systems are used to manage and control building subsystems such as HVAC, climate control, security, lighting, power and other systems but that such systems are not easily customizable and are difficult to integrate with systems from different vendors. Spec. 1:15—2:9. Appellants’ invention addresses these concerns by providing a dynamically extensible and automatically configurable building automation system (BAS) that is adapted to communicate with and determine characteristics of both known and unknown control devices. Spec. 3:21—4:17. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A building automation system (BAS) comprising: an architecture comprising a communication network and having a dynamic extensibility capability and an automatic configuration capability; a server engine communicatively coupled to the communication network; and at least one control device communicatively coupled to the communication network, the control device being known or unknown to the server engine, wherein the server engine is adapted to selectively implement the dynamic extensibility capability to establish communications with and to control both known and unknown control devices, and wherein the server engine is adapted to selectively implement the automatic configuration capability to determine at least one characteristic of both known and unknown control devices. 2 Appeal 2014-008606 Application 13/285,280 References and Rejections 1. Claims 1—16 stand rejected on grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1—27 of McCoy (US 8,050,801 B2, Nov. 1, 2011) and Page (US 2006/0010232, Al, Jan. 12, 2006). 2. Claims 1—3, 5 and 8—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tewari (US 2003/0084176 Al, May 1, 2003) and Page. 3. Claims 14—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tewari, Page, and Chiloyan (US 7,165,109 B2, Jan. 16, 2007). 4. Claims 4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tewari, Page, and Galloway (US 2004/0059808 Al, Mar. 25, 2004). ANALYSIS Double Patenting Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1—16 on grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1—27 of McCoy and Page. Final Act. 3—5. Appellants do not present any arguments against these rejections, thus waiving any arguments with respect thereto. See App. Br. 9 (“Once the Appeal is finalized, Applicants will address the double patenting rejection.”). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the double patenting rejection. Obviousness Rejection over Tewari and Page The Examiner finds Tewari teaches or suggests an engine adapted to implement dynamic extensibility capabilities and automatic configuration 3 Appeal 2014-008606 Application 13/285,280 capabilities but that it does not explicitly teach a server engine selectively implementing these capabilities. Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner fmds= that Page teaches or suggests the missing limitation of a server engine implementing the selective dynamic extensibility and automatic configuration capabilities of the claim. Final Act. 7 (citing Page 16, 19, 20, 66, and 67). Appellants argue the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest a “server engine . . . adapted to selectively implement the dynamic extensibility capability . . . and . . . selectively implement the automatic configuration capability,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants argue Page teaches the need for modules and elements separate from and in addition to a directory server in order to perform the tasks of discovery of devices on the network and updating the directory entry for these devices. App. Br. 13—14. Thus, according to Appellants, Page’s directory server is not initiating the discovery process or doing any of the updating of the directory entries. App Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Appellants do not dispute Page’s server is involved in the discovery process or updating of directory entries taught or suggested by Page. Rather Appellants’ argue that Page’s directory server does not initiate the discovery process or initiate updating of directory entries because other modules, in addition to the directory server, are involved in these processes. See App. Br. 13—14. Even assuming Appellants are correct that Page does not teach the directory server as initiating the discovery and updating processes, Appellants’ argument is incommensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require the server engine to initiate the implementation of the dynamic extensibility and automatic configuration capabilities, nor does it preclude other modules or 4 Appeal 2014-008606 Application 13/285,280 elements from being involved in the implementation of these capabilities. Page’s directory server stores entries containing configuration information regarding the network devices discovered on the network. Page 1 54. Thus, Page’s directory server is clearly involved in the implementation of the dynamic extensibility and automatic configuration capabilities of Page’s system. Appellants also argue that the invention of claim 1 is directed to a building automation system (BAS) having a plurality of different physical sites. App. Br. 15—16. According to Appellants, “[t]he control devices in a BAS are distributed over wide spaces, including a plurality of different physical sites that can vary from building level to any structure, cluster, campus, or area,” whereas the cited references are directed to devices plugged into a network that is not widespread App. Br. 16. For this reason, Appellants argue “Tewari and Page would not be combined by a person skilled in the art to achieve the claimed invention.” App. Br. 16. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because they are incommensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require the control devices connected to the communication network to be “widespread” or located at “different physical sites.” For this reason, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings that network devices, such as those disclosed in Tewari and Page, teach or suggest the “control devices” of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—16, for which Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability. See App. Br. 17. 5 Appeal 2014-008606 Application 13/285,280 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16 on grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6