Honeywell International Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2021

2020003270 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2021)

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