Ex Parte Yumoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2017

14375312 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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.
14/375,312 07/29/2014 Yoshiaki Yumoto 4633-0549PUS1 8692
127226 7590 01/02/2018
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
KABIR, SAAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2018 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIAKI YUMOTO, TSUYOSHI YOKOMIZO,
SHUNICHI UENAKA, and MARIO HAYASHI
Appeal 2017-010248
Application 14/375,312
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1—2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed July 29, 2014
(claiming benefit of PCT/JP2013/000713 filed Feb. 8, 2013 and JP 2012-
026866 filed Feb. 10, 2012); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Feb. 6, 2017;
and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed July 26, 2017. We also refer to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 2, 2017; and Final Office Action
(Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed Aug. 25, 2016.
Appeal 2017-010248
Application 14/375,312
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns air conditioning
systems and control of external devices. The air conditioner includes a setup
section (interface) enabling a user to select one of a linkage mode or a non-
linkage mode. In the linkage mode a controller permits control of an
external device based on a detection result of a human detection sensor
while the air conditioner is in operation and the controller inhibits control of
the external device based on the detection result while the air conditioner is
in a standby state. In the non-linkage mode the controller permits control of
the external device based on the detection result of the human detection
sensor irrespective of whether or not the air conditioner is in operation or in
the standby state. (Spec. H 1, 2, 4—12; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. An air conditioner comprising:
an indoor unit;
an outdoor unit; and
a human detection sensor that is located in the indoor unit
and detects presence of a human in a room, wherein
the indoor unit includes a controller that controls an
external device based on a detection result of the human
detection sensor,
the air conditioner is configured to transition to a standby
state in which electric power is supplied to the indoor unit and
no electric power is supplied to the outdoor unit while the air
conditioner is stopped,
in the standby state, electric power is supplied to the
human detection sensor and the controller, and
2
Appeal 2017-010248
Application 14/375,312
the air conditioner further comprises a setup section that
enables a user to select one of
a linkage mode in which the controller permits
control of the external device based on the detection result of the
human detection sensor while the air conditioner is in operation
and the controller inhibits control of the external device based
on the detection result of the human detection sensor while the
air conditioner is stopped or in the standby state; and
a non-linkage mode in which the controller permits
control of the external device based on the detection result of the
human detection sensor irrespective of whether or not the air
conditioner is in operation or in the standby state.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1—4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harrod et al. (US 2010/0070089 Al, published Mar. 18,
2010 (filed Sept. 15, 2009)) (“Harrod”) and Shintani et al. (US 6,980,079
Bl, issued Dec. 27, 2005) (“Shintani”).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Harrod and
Shintani would have taught or suggested “the air conditioner further
comprises a setup section that enables a user to select one of a linkage mode
. . . and a non-linkage mode,” as recited in Appellants’ claim 1?
3
Appeal 2017-010248
Application 14/375,312
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Harrod and Shintani. See Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 10—11. Appellants contend
that Harrod and Shintani do not teach the features of Appellants’ claim 1.
See App. Br. 2—5; Reply Br. 1—2. Specifically, Appellants contend that
Harrod and Shintani do not disclose, teach, or suggest, “an air conditioner
which enables a user to select one of a linkage mode and a non-linkage
mode” (App. Br. 2). See App. Br. 3—5; Reply Br. 1—2. Additionally,
Appellants contend that the combination of Harrod and Shintani does not
disclose or teach Appellants’ recited linkage mode and non-linkage mode.
See App. Br. 3—5; Reply Br. 1—2.
We agree with Appellants that the combination of Harrod and
Shintani does not teach the recited linkage mode and non-linkage mode,
much less a setup section (interface) that allows a user to select between the
modes as required in Appellants’ claim 1. We concur with the Examiner’s
findings that Harrod describes controlling external equipment, detecting a
person, exiting a standby mode based on detection, and restricting control
access. See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 10-11 (citing Harrod Tflf 78, 173—175). We
also concur with the Examiner’s findings that Shintani describes controlling
devices based on other devices (controlling external devices based on air
conditioner operation) and controlling an air conditioner based on detection
of a person. See Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 10-11 (citing Shintani, col. 13,11. 3—7;
col. 14,11. 37-47; col. 15,11. 54—62). Both Harrod and Shintani, however,
fail to teach or suggest the specific linkage mode and non-linkage mode
recited in claim 1. Neither reference explicitly describes controlling an
external device based on the operating conditions of an air conditioner and a
4
Appeal 2017-010248
Application 14/375,312
detection sensor. Further, and most dispositively, neither Harrod, nor
Shintani describe selecting between modes. See App. Br. 3—5; Reply Br. 1—
2. The Examiner does not address this disputed feature in detail. See Final
Act. 3—6; Ans. 10—11.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Harrod and Shintani
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of Appellant’s claim 1— in
particular, “a setup section that enables a user to select one of a linkage
mode . . . and a non-linkage mode” (claim 1). Dependent claims 2—\ depend
on and fall with claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims \—A.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—4 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4.
REVERSED
5