Fibar Group sp. z o.o.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2020

14590988 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2020)

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.
14/590,988 01/06/2015 Maciej Fiedler 27910US02 5733
23446 7590 09/18/2020
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
TRAN, THANG DUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2020 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MACIEJ FIEDLER, BARTLOMIEJ ARCICHOWSKI, and
ROBERT ZDUNEK
___________

Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1–18 and 21, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2.2
Claims 19 and 20 are canceled. Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.). We have

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as Nice S.p.A. Reply Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Response after Final Office
Action (“Resp.,” filed May 23, 2018), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
September 7, 2018), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 11, 2019);
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 9, 2018), Advisory
Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed June 28, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed December 10, 2018); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed
January 6, 2015). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and
Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

2

jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The recited devices, control systems, and methods “relate to electronic
systems and/or networking. More specifically, certain implementations of
the present disclosure relate to an intelligent motion sensor.” Spec. ¶ 2.
As noted above, claims 1–18 and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 18
are independent. Appeal Br. 31 (claim 1), 33–34 (claim 9), 36 (claim 18)
(Claims App.).
Claim 18 recites “[a] method of controlling a network device operable
to perform a function in a network via a) an intelligent sensing device, and
being remote from the network device, and b) a network manager operable
to communicate with the network device and the intelligent sensing device.”
Id. at 36. Claim 1 recites, “[a]n intelligent sensing device,” comprising a
temperature sensor, a motion sensor, and a controller for performing
functions substantially as recited in claim 18. Id. at 31. Claim 9 similarly
recites “[a] control system for use with a sensing device in a wireless
network,” comprising a control device and an intelligent sensing device that
comprises a temperature sensor, a motion sensor, and a controller for
performing functions substantially as recited in claim 18. Id. at 33.
Claims 2–8 and 21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and
claims 10–17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 9. Id. at 31–37.
Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are illustrative.
1. An intelligent sensing device comprising:
a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature;
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

3

a motion sensor configured to detect motion of an object;
a controller configured to receive the temperature and
whether motion is detected by the motion sensor; and
wherein the controller is configured to:
adjust a color of a multi-colored LED emitted light
in response to the detected temperature;
adjust an intensity of the multi-colored LED emitted
light when motion is detected by the motion sensor; and
transmit the detected temperature and the detection
of motion on an external network.
Id. at 314 (emphasis added).
21. The intelligent sensing device of claim 1, further comprising:
a wireless transceiver configured to communicate
on a network; and
a range tester configured to determine a
connectivity status of the intelligent sensing device on the
network and to adjust the color of the multi-colored LED
emitted light according to the status.
Id. at 37 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Publ’d Filed
Recker US 2010/0141153 A1 June 10, 2010 Nov. 26, 2009
Fadell US 2014/0316581 A1 Oct. 23, 2014 Mar. 15, 2013
The Examiner rejects claims 1–18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Fadell and Recker. Final Act. 2–30.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified
by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). The

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

4

Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and contentions on claims 1
and 21; so do we. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 9–30; Ans. 3–10, 11–16. Arguments
not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless otherwise
indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action and
the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis.
We address the rejection below.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Over Fadell and Recker
1. Claim 1
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the combined teachings of Fadell and Recker. Final Act. 2–
6. The Examiner finds that Fadell teaches or suggests the majority of the
limitations of independent claim 1. Id. at 2–4. In particular, the Examiner
finds Fadell teaches or suggests the controller is configured to “transmit the
detected temperature and the detection of motion on an external network.”
Id. at 4 (citing Fadell ¶¶ 187, 254, 262, 270, 339).
The Examiner finds that Fadell does not teach or suggest the
controller is configured to “adjust a color of a multi-colored LED emitted
light in response to the detected temperature [and] adjust an intensity of the
multi-colored LED emitted light when motion is detected by the motion
sensor.” Id. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Recker teaches or suggests
these limitations (id. at 4–6 (citing Recker ¶¶ 145, 157, 169, 213, 339)) and a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine
Fadell’s teachings with those of Recker to achieve the devices recited in
claim 1 (id. at 6 (citing Fadell ¶¶ 7, 15, 167)).
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

5

With regard to the “transmit” limitation, Fadell discloses:
The central server or cloud-computing system 2264 can
collect operation data 2302 from the smart home devices. For
example, the devices can routinely transmit operation data or
can transmit operation data in specific instances (e.g., when
requesting customer support). The central server or cloud-
computing architecture 2264 can further provide one or more
services 2304. The services 2304 can include, e.g., software
update, customer support, sensor data collection/ logging,
remote access, remote or distributed control, or use suggestions
(e.g., based on collected operation data 2304 to improve
performance, reduce utility cost, etc.).
Fadell ¶ 187 (emphases added); see id. ¶¶ 262 (“Communications interface
3650 provides an interface to other communication networks and devices
and may serve as an interface to receive data from and transmit data to other
systems, WANs and/or the Internet 3518.”), 339 (“Examples include
communications events, in which the intelligent controller receives or
transmits data to remote entities, such as remote smart-home devices and
cloud-computing servers.”). Further, Fadell discloses that a device may
include one or more sensors including temperature and motion sensors.
Id. ¶ 167. Thus, the Examiner finds Fadell teaches or suggests a controller
that is configured to transmit the detected temperature and the detection of
motion on an external network. Final Act. 4; see Ans. 7.
With regard to the “adjust” limitations, Recker discloses,
the input component 1012 can be a radio frequency (RF) receiver
that can obtain an RF signal communicated from an RF
transmitter (not shown) that can be utilized by the control
component 1010 to control operation of the light source 1006.
According to this example, the RF signal can be deciphered by
the control component 1010 to effectuate switching the light
source 1006 to an on or off state, changing a light color or a light
intensity provided by the light source 1006, and the like.
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

6

Additionally or alternatively, the input component 1012 can be
one or more sensors that monitor a condition, and monitored
information yielded by such sensor(s) can be utilized to
effectuate adjustments associated with the light source 1006.
Recker ¶ 145 (emphases added); see id. ¶ 178 (“At 1702, a condition within
an environment can be monitored with a sensor integrated in a light bulb.
The sensor, for example, can be one or more . . . motion sensors, . . . thermal
sensors, . . . and the like.”). Thus, the Examiner finds Recker teaches or
suggests a controller configured to adjust the light color in response to the
detected temperature and the light intensity when motion is detected. Final
Act. 4–6; see Ans. 7–10.
Fadell discloses controlling the operation of systems based on sensor
data to improve control and to increase energy efficiency. See Fadell ¶¶ 7,
15. In particular, Fadell discloses:
In some instances, device 2100 includes one or more primary
sensors and one or more secondary sensors. The primary
sensor(s) can sense data central to the core operation of the
device (e.g., sensing a temperature in a thermostat or sensing
smoke in a smoke detector). The secondary sensor(s) can sense
other types of data (e.g., motion, light or sound), which can be
used for energy-efficiency objectives or smart operation
objectives. In some instances, an average user may even be
unaware of an existence of a secondary sensor.
Id. ¶ 167 (emphases added); see id. ¶ 166 (“As described further herein, one
or more intelligent, multi-sensing, network-connected devices can be used to
promote user comfort, convenience, safety and/or cost savings.” (emphasis
added)). Consequently, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Fadell and
Recker to achieve the devices, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 33; see id.
at 6; Ans. 16.
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

7

Appellant contends the Examiner errs for three reasons. For the
reasons given below, Appellant’s reasons are not persuasive.
First, Appellant contends that Fadell fails to teach or suggest, “the
controller is configured to . . . transmit the detected temperature and the
detection of motion on an external network.” Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 3–
4. In particular, Appellant contends that Fadell discloses transmitting
“operation data” to a central server or cloud-computing system. Appeal
Br. 10 (quoting Fadell ¶ 187). Although the Examiner finds “operation data
is equivalent to the detect temperature and detect of motion” (Ans. 7),
Appellant contends “there is no disclosure that the detected temperature and
the detection of motion is transmitted on an external network (the alleged
central server)” (Appeal Br. 10). See Reply Br. 4 (“The Examiner, however,
does not point to any particular section of Fadell that teaches, suggests, or
otherwise discloses that ‘operation data’ includes temperature data.”).
Fadell discloses, however, “[t]he services 2304 can include, e.g.,
software update, customer support, sensor data collection/logging, remote
access, remote or distributed control, or use suggestions (e.g., based on
collected operation data 2304 to improve performance, reduce utility cost,
etc.).” Fadell ¶ 187 (emphasis added); see id. ¶¶ 12, 167, 174, 188, 191, 192
(describing examples of the collection and use of operation data). Thus, we
are persuaded Fadell teaches or suggests that “operation data” includes
sensor data, including detected temperatures and detected motion, and
transmitting such data to a network, as recited in claim 1.
Second, Appellant contends, “[w]ith regard to Recker, the Actions do
not explicitly point out how one light is controlled in two different ways
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

8

(‘adjust a color’ and ‘adjust [an intensity]’4) in response to two different
detected conditions (‘temperature’ and ‘motion’).” Appeal Br. 11; see Reply
Br. 4–5. In particular, Appellant notes Recker discloses, “the input
component 1012 can be one or more sensors that monitor a condition,
and monitored information yielded by such sensor(s) can be utilized to
effectuate adjustments associated with the light source 1006.” Appeal
Br. 12; Resp. 10; see Appeal Br. 15, Resp. 13 (discussing Recker ¶ 213).
Appellant contends Recker’s Paragraph 145
discloses more than one sensor, but these sensors are used to
monitor “a” condition (i.e., only one condition). Therefore there
is no disclosure of “wherein the controller is configured to: adjust
a color LED emitted light in response to the detected
temperature; adjust an intensity of the multi-colored LED
emitted light when motion is detected by the motion sensor.”
Appeal Br. 11–12 (emphasis added); see Resp. 9–10. We disagree.
As the Examiner explains,
Fadell et al. clearly teach the device may include multiple
sensors, for example primary sensor can be a temperature sensor
and secondary sensor can be a motion sensor. Recker et al.
clearly teach control component 1010 enable operating of the
light source and adjust light source like on or off state, changing
a light color or a light intensity corresponding to the detect
motion or detect temperature. Since the combination of Fadell
et al. and Recker et al. do teach the operating of the light source
and adjusting the light source corresponding to the detect motion
or temperature, therefore it’s obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to combine both
element like motion and temperature to performs the same
function like controlling the operating of light source and
adjusting the light source.
Ans. 9–10.

4 See Reply Br. 4 n.1 (noting a typographical error at Appeal Br. 11).
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

9

We agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of the
applied references teach or suggest this limitation. Moreover, we are
persuaded that Appellant’s reading of Recker as limited to multiple sensors
monitoring a single condition is too narrow and is not supported when
Recker’s Paragraph 145 is considered in context. See Recker ¶¶ 144
(“Moreover, the control component 1010 can alter intensity, brightness,
color (e.g., wavelength, frequency), etc. of the light yielded by the light
source 1006.”), 157 (“For example, the sensor(s) 1202 can be one or more of
infrared sensors, light sensors, proximity sensors, acoustic sensors, motion
sensors, carbon monoxide and/or smoke detectors, thermal sensors,
electromagnetic sensors, mechanical sensors, chemical sensors, and the
like.” (emphasis added)), 178 (“At 1702, a condition within an environment
can be monitored with a sensor integrated in a light bulb. The sensor, for
example, can be one or more infrared sensors, light sensors, proximity
sensors, acoustic sensors, motion sensors, carbon monoxide and/or smoke
detectors, thermal sensors, electromagnetic sensors, mechanical sensors,
chemical sensors, and the like.” (emphases added)). Thus, we are persuaded
the Examiner shows the combined teachings of Fadell and Recker teach or
suggest that a controller may adjust the color and intensity of light based on
the input of multiple sensors, including detected temperature and detected
motion, as recited in claim 1.
Third, Appellant contends:
The “rationale” for combining Fadell with Recker amounts to
one generic sentence: “The motivation to combine these arts is
to provide a system to improve the energy efficiency in the home
environment.” But the Final Office Action fails to explain how
such a proposition would have linked Fadell to Recker.
Appeal Br. 28 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

10

The Examiner finds the combined teachings of Fadell and Recker “to
improve energy efficiency in the home environment.” Id.; see id. at 6; Adv.
Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner explains that Fadell discloses the
objective of improved energy efficiency. Final Act. 33 (citing Fadell ¶¶ 7,
15, 167). Like Fadell, Recker discloses the objective of improved energy
efficiency. E.g., Recker ¶¶ 6, 7, 10.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, “[u]nder the correct
analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (emphasis added). Because the objective of improved
energy efficiency is a need or problem addressed by the Specification (see
Spec. ¶ 96), we are persuaded the Examiner has shown adequately a reason
to combine the teachings of Fadell and Recker to achieve the devices, as
recited in claim 1.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that claim 1, as
well as claims 9 and 18, which are not argued separately, is obvious over the
combined teachings of Fadell and Recker. See Appeal Br. 17. Further, with
the exception of claim 21, Appellant does not challenge the rejection of the
dependent claims separately. See id. On this record, then, we also are not
persuaded the Examiner errs in finding claims 2–8 and 10–17 obvious over
the combined teachings of Fadell and Recker. Consequently, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1–18.
2. Claim 21
As noted above, the Examiner also rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Fadell and Recker. Final
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

11

Act. 29–30. Claim 21 recites, in the devices of claim 1, “a range tester
configured to determine a connectivity status of the intelligent sensing
device on the network and to adjust the color of the multi-colored LED
emitted light according to the status.” Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.)
(emphases added). The Examiner acknowledges that Fadell does not teach
or suggest this limitation, but finds Recker teaches or suggests this limitation
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine
the teachings of Fadell with those of Recker to achieve the devices, as
recited in claim 21. Final Act. 29–30 (citing Recker ¶¶ 125, 166, 234–35,
342–43, Fig. 7); see Ans. 12–14.
In particular, Recker discloses,
using a radar based motion sensor may allow detection of an
object in the detection area, not just that the object is moving. A
radar based motion sensor may provide information about the
range to the object which may allow for intelligent decisions to
be made about whether the object that is detected should trigger
a change of state of the wireless light bulb or battery powered
wireless lighting fixture. By way of an example, a wireless light
bulb may turn on only when an object is within 20 feet of the
wireless light bulb. A radar based motion sensor may determine
that an object is 30 feet away and thereby, even though the object
is detected, still not turn the light on or turn the light on to a lower
light intensity until the object moves within 20 feet.
Recker ¶ 342 (emphasis added); see id. ¶ 125 (“As such, an RFID tag
associated with a user can be detected when in range of the interface
component 704, and lighting preferences of the particular user (e.g.,
retained in memory) can be effectuated in response to his or her detected
presence.” (emphases added)). Thus, the Examiner finds Recker teaches or
suggests the “range tester,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

12

Appellant disagrees and contends that the Examiner fails to show
where Recker teaches or suggests a “range tester,” e.g., range measuring
device, that (1) determines a connectivity status of the intelligent sensing
device on a network and (2) adjusts the color of the multi-colored LED
emitted light according to the determined connectivity status. Appeal
Br. 18; Reply Br. 28. We agree with Appellant.
The Specification explains, “the intelligent motion sensor 200 may
incorporate a wireless range tester (not shown) that may be operable to, for
example, determine whether the intelligent motion sensor 200 is within a
range of a home network manager (e.g., home network manager 210) and/or
other network element” (Spec. ¶ 67) and “[the] wireless range tester may
indicate whether the intelligent motion sensor 200 is in range, is in an
intermediate range and/or is out of range of a home network manager” (id.
¶ 68). Thus, the range tester determines the connectivity status of the
intelligent sensing device on a network.
Further, the Specification explains the range tester also adjusts the
color of the multi-colored LED emitted light according to the determined
connectivity status. In particular, the Specification explains:
In an example embodiment of the disclosure, the intelligent
motion sensor 200 may indicate whether the intelligent motion
sensor is in range (e.g., direct, indirect) and/or out of range
through one or more audio and/or visual indicators. The
indicators may be, for example, integrated with and/or external
to the intelligent motion sensor 200. For example, the intelligent
motion sensor 200 may comprise an external visual indicator
(e.g., LED, RGB, RGBW light) that may be operable to display
the status of the intelligent motion sensor 200 with respect to the
range through different colors and/or illumination schemes. For
example, a visual indicator may display a different color
depending on the in-range status (e.g., one color may indicate
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

13

that the intelligent motion sensor 200 is in a direct range, a
second color may indicate that the intelligent motion sensor 200
is in indirect range and/or a third color may indicate that the
intelligent motion sensor 200 is out of range).
Id. ¶ 69; see id. ¶ 68.
Although the Examiner shows that Recker discloses determining the
range to an object and adjusting a light characteristic in response to the
detected range (see, e.g., Recker ¶¶ 125, 342), in light of the Specification’s
explanation of this limitation, we are not persuaded the Examiner shows that
Recker further teaches or suggests determining the “connectivity status of
the intelligent sensing device on the network” based on a measured range
and then adjusting a light characteristic “according to the [determined
connectivity] status,” as recited in claim 21. We are persuaded the Examiner
errs in finding that the claim 21 is obvious over the combined teachings of
Fadell and Recker. Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, as obvious over the combined teachings of Fadell and Recker.
2. The Examiner errs in rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
obvious over the combined teachings of Fadell and Recker.
3. Thus, on this record, claims 1–18 are not patentable, but claim 21 is
not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–18, but reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Appeal 2019-002603
Application 14/590,988

14

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–18, 21 103 Fadell, Recker 1–18 21
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART