Honeywell International Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 27, 20212020003270 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/638,855 03/04/2015 Cory Grabinger H0044023-1161.1893101 6474 90545 7590 08/27/2021 HONEYWELL/STW Intellectual Property Services Group 300 S. Tryon Street Suite 600 Charlotte, NC 28202 EXAMINER ADNAN, MUHAMMAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2021 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): Honeywell.USPTO@STWiplaw.com patentservices-us@honeywell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CORY GRABINGER, MIROSLAV MIKUIICA, JOSEF HLADKY and WILLIAM BRAY Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–17, 19, and 20. See Final Act. 1. Claims 1, 8, and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 13–16 1 We refer to the Specification, filed March 4, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed May 9, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed October 9, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 27, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed March 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honeywell International, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 2 (Claims App.). Claims 2, 3, 10, 13, 14, and 18 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s Specification states “[t]he disclosure pertains to building control systems that include wall modules for controlling features of the building control system.” Spec. 17–18. To enhance security, wireless communication between the wall module and a portable handheld device is provided over a short range of less than sixty feet. Claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with claim element labels added, is illustrative: 1. A wall module for use in a Heating, Ventilation and/or Air Conditioning (HVAC) control system that includes a remote HVAC controller, the wall module comprising: [(I)] a wall module controller; [(II)] a temperature sensor located within the wall module and operatively coupled to the wall module controller for sensing a sensed temperature that is used in controlling the HVAC control system; ([III)] a first transceiver operatively coupled to the wall module controller and configured to establish wired communication with the remote HVAC controller; [(IV)] a second transceiver operatively coupled to the wall module controller and configured to establish short range wireless communication having a communication range of less than 60 feet with a portable handheld device held by a user within the communication range of the wall module; [(V)] the wall module controller configured to receive from the portable handheld device via the second transceiver a request for particular requested HVAC control information requested by a user, the wall module controller further configured to communicate the request to the remote HVAC controller via the first transceiver; Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 3 [(VI)] the wall module controller configured to receive from the remote HVAC controller via the first transceiver the particular requested HVAC control information, the wall module controller further configured to provide the requested particular information to the portable handheld device via the second transceiver; and [(VII)] wherein establishment of the short range wireless communication between the wall module and the portable handheld device facilitates secure access to the particular requested building control information of the remote HVAC controller by requiring the portable handheld device to be physically within the communication range of less than 60 feet of the second transceiver of the wall module. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Nath US 2005/0070245 Al Mar. 31, 2005 Clark US 2010/0121968 Al May 13, 2010 Crawford US 2010/0241275 Al Sept. 23, 2010 Sloo US 2013/0345883 Al Dec. 26, 2013 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Clark, Crawford, Nath, and Sloo. Final Act. 3–7. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings Clark, Crawford, and Nath. Id. at 7–16. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 4 OPINION We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Except to the extent inconsistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own the findings set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Examiner’s Findings and Appellant’s Contentions of Error The Examiner finds Clark’s disclosure of a system for programming and controlling home automation systems teaches many of the limitations of claim 1 including those recited by all or portions of claim elements (I) and (III)–(V). Final Act. 3–4 (citing Clark ¶¶ 2–4, 16–17, 20, 26; Figs. 4–5). The Examiner finds Clarks fails to specifically teach the requirements of (1) the module controller is configured to receive particular requested HVAC control information requested by Clark’s portable handheld device (element V); (2) receiving the requested particular information from the remote HVAC controller via the first transceiver and providing the information to the portable handheld device via the second transceiver (element VI); and (3) a 60 foot communication range limitation between the second transceiver and the portable handheld device of Clark’s wireless local area network (LAN) (element IV); Id. at 5–6. The Examiner addresses the noted deficiencies, finding Crawford’s disclosure of communicating with rooftop air handling units and other HVAC components teaches the communication requirements of claim elements (V) and (VI) including Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 5 (1) communicating a request for particular HVAC control information received from a portable handheld device to a remote HVAC controller (element V); and (2) receiving and providing to the portable handheld device the requested HVAC control information received from the remote HVAC controller (element VI). Final Act. 5 (citing Crawford ¶¶ 42–43, 53, 72; Figs. 5, 16). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Clark and Crawford, as follows: Clark and Crawford are is a similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Clark and Crawford in order to facilitate wireless connection with a portable device for increased convenience and a wired connection with remote devices for improved security which is desired. Id. at 6. Although finding Crawford3 teaches, “the connection between the portable device and the intermediary module is Bluetooth in nature,” the Examiner finds Crawford does not explicitly teach Bluetooth connections have a communication range of less than 60 feet (elements (IV) and (VII)). Id. Addressing the specific 60 foot distance limitation the Examiner finds “Nath teaches that [a] Bluetooth system [(as taught by Crawford)] has a communication diameter range of around 10 feet . . . which is less than 60 feet.” Id. (citing Nath ¶ 19). The Examiner reasons limiting the 3 The Examiner mistakenly names Clark instead of Crawford in the citation to paragraph 47 of the relied-upon reference. See Final Act. 6. However, when read in context and in view of the mention of Bluetooth at paragraph 47 of Crawford rather than Clark, we determine the erroneous citation constitutes harmless error. Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 6 communications range of Clark and Crawford as taught by Nath enhances security and reduces interference with neighboring devices. Id. In connection with the temperature sensor of claim 1’s element (II), the Examiner finds Sloo’s disclosure of thermostat 300 including temperature sensor 484 located within housing [module] 460 “teaches [the recited] temperature sensor located within the module and operatively coupled to the module controller for sensing a temperature that is used in controlling the HVAC control system.” Id. at 7 (citing Sloo ¶¶ 53, 60, 69; Fig. 4). The Examiner justifies the combination, as follows: Clark, Crawford, Nath and Sloo are in a similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine their teachings because it would be desired to include the temperature sensor in the same housing as the wall module because the user can easily input his desired temperature level for the room where the module is located and temperature sensor would actuate the HVAC system based on the reading of the sensor in that room as suggested by Sloo (see e.g. para. [0060]). Id. Appellant contends the rejection is improper, arguing 1. The improper use of hindsight in modifying the combination of Clark, Crawford, and Nath to add Sloo’s temperature sensor to Clark’s wall module (Appeal Br. 7); and 2. Clark’s goal of providing secure remote access to a home automation from anywhere using the Internet would be frustrated by and teaches away from incorporating range limited communication systems such as those disclosed by Crawford’s or Nath’s Bluetooth systems (id. at 7–10). Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 7 We address Appellant’s contentions of error as follows. 1. Incorporation of Sloo’s Temperature Sensor Claim 1’s element (II)4 recites, “a temperature sensor located within the wall module and operatively coupled to the wall module controller for sensing a sensed temperature that is used in controlling the HVAC control system.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Appellant contends the Examiner errs in modifying the combined teachings of Clark, Crawford, and Nath to include Sloo’s temperature sensor because “None of Clark, Crawford nor Nath can be seen to disclose (or suggest a need or reason for) adding a temperature sensor to a wall module that is in communication with an HVAC controller (which itself may include a temperature sensor).” Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner responds, finding It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a temperature sensor in the disclosed home automation device of Clark for controlling an HVAC system based on accurate temperature of the room where the automation device is located as suggested by Sloo (see e.g. para. [0060]) which in turn increases comfort for person(s) in that room. Ans. 4. Appellant replies, arguing Clark’s disclosure of house automation device 24 in communication with a separate thermostat 26d is evidence that a temperature sensor would not be incorporated into Clark’s home automation itself. Reply Br. 3. 4 Independent claims 8 and 17 omit language corresponding to the temperature sensor of subject element (II) of claim 1 such that the Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Sloo in the rejection of those claims or of dependent claims 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20. Final Act. 7–16. Thus, Appellant’s arguments addressed under the present heading are only relevant to claims 1, 4, and 6. Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 8 Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. Any judgment on obviousness is . . . necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); see also Radix Corp. v. Samuels, 13 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (D.D.C. 1989) (“[A]ny obviousness inquiry necessarily involves some hindsight.”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds . . . must [include] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”); and Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“It has long been the law that the motivation to combine need not be found in prior art references, but equally can be found ‘in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.’”) (Quoting In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 351 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The Court further instructs, [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Appellant’s argument that none of the references disclose a reason for adding a temperature sensor to a wall module is unpersuasive (Appeal Br. 7) because, as explained above, the reasoning to combine the teachings of the Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 9 references need not be found in the references themselves. In the present case, the Examiner reasons [I]t would be desired to include [Sloo’s] temperature sensor in the same housing as [Clark’s] wall module because the user can easily input his desired temperature level for the room where the module is located and temperature sensor would actuate the HVAC system based on the reading of the sensor in that room as suggested by Sloo. Final Act. 7. Accordingly, in the present case, we find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, we note in passing that, integrating Clark’s thermostat 26d into home automation device 24 is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a matter of obvious engineering choice that does not render an invention patentable. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B). 2. Communication Range of Less Than 60 Feet Claim 1’s element (IV) recites, “a second transceiver operatively coupled to the wall module controller and configured to establish short range wireless communication having a communication range of less than 60 feet with a portable handheld device held by a user within the communication range of the wall module.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Appellant contends the Examiner errs in modifying the teachings of Clark to use a range-limited communications system as taught by Crawford and Nath, arguing Clark teaches away from the combination. Id. at 10. Appellant additionally argues that making the modification is an improper “alteration Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 10 that material[ly] changes the intended function or purpose of the primary [Clark] reference [that] cannot be considered to be obvious.” Id. In particular, Appellant argues, “Clark appears to teach inclusion of the Internet as part of Clark’s communication path to achieve a stated goal of remote access, and thus Clark would teach away from the security provided by the claimed communication.” Id. According to Appellant It will be appreciated that in order to make Clark (modified by Crawford, Nath and possibl[y] Sloo) read on the claimed invention, Clark’s communication path would have to be materially changed in order to provide the same level of security provided by the claimed invention, but this modification would cause Clark to not be able to achieve the stated goal of provide remote access from anywhere (e.g. Clark states “[t]he disclosed embodiments solve a long felt need for remotely communicating with household devices . . . ” [0007]). Id. The Examiner responds, finding Appellant’s argument that Clark does not provide the same level of security as the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 which does not recite any required security level. Ans. 5. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s teaching away argument, as follows: Clark teaches control of one or more appliances, located inside a household or facility since they are located within the user home LAN 46, are controlled directly using wireless LAN (see e.g. para. [0026] and FIG. 5). Therefore, security aspects are achieved, because the portable handheld device is located within the LAN 46 in order to establish wireless communication between the portable handheld device and the home automation device or the devices being controlled. Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 11 Id. In connection with Appellant’s argument that Crawford does not provide any reason to materially change the manner in which the devices of Clark interact and communicate as set for at page 10 of Appellant’s Appeal Brief, the Examiner responds as follows: Crawford makes obvious that a Bluetooth can be used to communicate control information to and from an HVAC component (such as RTU; see e.g. para. [0028]) via an interface device (see e.g. FIGS. 5–7 and para. [0040–41] and [0044–45]). Similarly, Clark teaches, in one of the embodiments that one or more devices can be communicated to (or from) on a local area network (or wireless LAN), see e.g. para. [0026] and FIG. 5, which means that the user and the controlled devices/appliances are located within the range of the wireless LAN (or in close proximity). Thus, the disclosed appliances which are intended to be controlled and the controlling user device don’t necessarily have to be located far apart from each other but within the range of user home LAN 46 as shown in FIG. 5. Since Clark and Crawford, both, directed to communicating with one or more appliances within a local network (or within a building or facility), they do not teach away from each other (or the claimed invention) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine their teachings. Ans. 6–7. Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. As found by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Appellant’s argument directed to a required level of security is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 which only recites that establishment of the short range wireless communication between the wall module and the portable handheld device facilitates secure access to the particular requested building control information of the remote HVAC controller by requiring the portable handheld device to be physically within Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 12 the communication range of less than 60 feet of the second transceiver of the wall module. Claim 1, element (VII). That is, facilitating secure access only requires that the portable handheld device be within 60 feet of the second transceiver without specifying any other criteria that must be satisfied. Thus, provision of a wireless communication facility that has a range of less than 60 feet, such as Crawford’s and Nath’s Bluetooth, teaches or suggests the argued short range wireless communication limitation of claim 1’s elements (IV) and (VII). We are also unpersuaded Clark’s disclosure of providing user access via the Internet teaches away from the claimed short-range wireless communication. As found by the Examiner, Clark’s wireless LAN 46 provides connectivity between home automation device 24 and local user device 21c. Final Act. 3. As depicted in Figure 5 of Clark, wireless router 57, not Internet 51, provides short-range wireless communication to a local user 21c. Thus, Appellant’s argument that substituting a Bluetooth connection for Internet 51 fails to address the Examiner’s findings. Furthermore, because Clark discloses providing home LAN 46 including wireless router 57, Clark discloses rather than teaches away from a range- limited communications system. In particular, a wireless LAN is understood as a local area network that provides connectivity between and among local network nodes using, for example, radio. As part of a local network, a wireless router typically is range-limited to provide network connectivity within some limited service area (e.g., within the user’s home). Conversely, Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence that Clark so criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages use of short-range wireless Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 13 communication to constitute a teaching away from making the argued combination. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Teaching an alternative method does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965); see also Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”); Ex parte Shuping, No. 2008-0394, 2008 WL 336222, at *2 (BPAI 2008) (unpublished) (“[T]eaching a way is not teaching away.”) (Citation omitted). Thus, for the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s argument that Clark employs the Internet to provide secure remote access fails to constitute a teaching away. For similar reasons, we are unpersuaded the combination of Clark with Crawford and Nath would change the intended function or purpose of Clark’s system. In so finding, we note claim 1 does not preclude use of a long-range communication system, such Clark’s Internet, in addition to the short-range wireless communication method taught by Clark’s wireless router and Crawford’s and Nath’s Bluetooth systems. Because Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 together with the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 6, which are not argued separately with particularity. We further sustain the Examiner’s Appeal 2020-003270 Application 14/638,855 14 rejection of independent claims 8 and 17 which are argued on the basis of independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 10–12) together with the rejection of dependent claims 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 which are not argued separately apart from their respective base claims. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Clark, Crawford, Nath, and Sloo. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Clark, Crawford, and Nath. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 6, 7 103(a) Clark, Crawford, Nath, Sloo 1, 4, 6, 7 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, 19, 20 103(a) Clark, Crawford, Nath 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–17, 19, 20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation