Honeywell International Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2021

2020000902 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 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.
14/938,694 11/11/2015 Henry Chen H0046249-1161.1974101 1856
90545 7590 06/10/2021
HONEYWELL/STW
Intellectual Property Services Group
300 S. Tryon Street
Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2021 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 HENRY CHEN, WEILIN ZHANG, and
PETER LAU

Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694
Technology Center 2600

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.1 See Appeal Br. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Honeywell International, Inc. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to displaying information of a
facility; in particular, providing visualization indicative of the overall status
of an HVAC system. Spec. 1:9–13. Appellants indicate that overlying
temperature information onto renderings of floorplan data within graphical
user interfaces is known, but that prior approaches are limited in terms of the
operational awareness conveyed. Id. at 1:18–20.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method for displaying facility
information on a display, the method including:
maintaining electronic access to a repository of digital floorplan
data, wherein the floorplan data is defined by a plurality of
scalable resolution independent vector floorplan images, each
scalable resolution independent vector floorplan image
representing a physical space in a facility;
maintaining access to a database that associates each of a
plurality of the scalable resolution independent vector floorplan
images with one or more specific pieces of building management
hardware of a building management system that service the
physical space represented by the corresponding scalable
resolution independent vector floorplan image;
receiving building management data from the specific pieces of
building management hardware via a network; and
in response to a request from a client terminal, enabling the client
terminal to render one or more of the scalable resolution
independent vector floorplan images at a desired position and
resolution on the display, wherein the rendered one or more of
the scalable resolution independent vector floorplan images
include one or more graphical characteristics that are determined
by reference to the building management data received from the
respective associated specific pieces of building management
hardware that service the physical space represented by the
rendered one or more of the scalable resolution independent
Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694

3
vector floorplan images such that the building management data
is bound to the rendered one or more of the scalable resolution
independent vector floorplan images to enable real time
application of the building management data to the rendered one
or more of the scalable resolution independent vector floorplan
images.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Shi et al. (“Shi”) US 2008/0109159 A1 May 8, 2008
Hart US 2008/0183483 A1 July 31, 2008
Geadelmann et
al.
(“Geadelmann”)
US 2009/0057427 A1 Mar. 5, 2009
Han US 2010/0017739 A1 Jan. 21, 2010
Lee et al.
(“Lee”)
US 2012/0044138 A1 Feb. 23, 2012
Chegini et al.
(“Chegini”)
US 2014/0033069 A1 Jan. 30 2014

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–6, 11, 13–16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of
Geadelmann, Hart, and Lee.
Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Geadelmann, Hart,
Lee, and Chegini.
Claims 7, 8, and 17–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Geadelmann, Hart,
Lee, and Hughes.
Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694

4
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Geadelmann, Hart,
Lee, and Han.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combined teachings and suggestions of Geadelmann, Hart, Lee, and Shi.

OPINION
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the
claims are in error because the combination of references does not teach or
suggest each element of the claims. We begin with claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia,
wherein the rendered one or more of the scalable resolution
independent vector floorplan images include one or more
graphical characteristics that are determined by reference to the
building management data received from the respective
associated specific pieces of building management hardware
that service the physical space . . . to enable real time
application of the building management data to the rendered
one or more of the scalable resolution independent vector
floorplan images.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds claim 1 to be obvious over the combination of
Geadelmann, Hart, and Lee. With respect to the disputed limitation cited
above, the Examiner finds this limitation to be taught by the combined
teachings of those three references. Specifically, the Examiner relies upon
Geadelmann for teaching the graphics representation as temperature data
from building management data, Hart for the scalable resolution independent
vector floorplan image, and Lee for the graphical representation of sensor
data on a scalable resolution independent floorplan. Ans. 7; Final Act. 3–10.
Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694

5
Appellant first argues that none of the applied references are
concerned with “deficiencies in operational awareness, nor teach a solution
to this problem.” Appeal Br. 10. However, the obviousness determination
is not limited by the problem sought to be solved, either by Appellant or in a
single reference. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (“the appeals court erred in assuming
that a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to solve a problem will be
led only to those prior art elements designed to solve the same problem. . . .
a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle”). Nor does claim 1 recite, either
expressly or inherently, “operational awareness.” Accordingly, such an
argument is not persuasive.
Appellant further argues that temperature data is not displayed
graphically in Geadelmann. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that
Geadelmann displays a graphical representation of the floorplan having
symbolic representations of thermostats, yet temperature data is displayed in
a separate pane from the floorplan. Id. Appellant further argues that the
thermostats are not part of the scalable resolution independent floorplan
image, but instead merely superimposed thereon. Id. at 12–13, 16.
The test for obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner relies upon a
combination of the references to teach or suggest this limitation. Because
the Examiner relies on Geadelmann’s use of temperature data of a building
floorplan as combined with Lee’s use of graphical representation of sensor
data on a scalable resolution independent floorplan, Appellant’s arguments
against Geadelmann alone are not persuasive as to error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694

6
combination of Geadelmann, Hart, and Lee. For the same reason,
Appellant’s arguments against the individual teachings of Hart and Lee
(Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br. 2–3), and Appellant’s argument that no
individual reference considers the entirety of the disputed limitation of claim
1 (Appeal Br. 17), are not persuasive as to error in the combination.
Appellant further argues, “it is not clear how to combine Lee with
Geadelmann and Hart to arrive at a solution analogous to the present
invention.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed
combination, resulting in a floorplan receiving a scalable vector
representation from each thermostat, is unclear because neither the
thermostats nor the temperature data of Geadelmann are bound to the
floorplan.
As discussed above, the test for obviousness is not focused on the
appellant’s solution, but instead on the limitations of the claim.
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is “not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference,” but instead “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
The Examiner combines Geadelmann’s use of graphical
representation of a floorplan of a building along with temperature data
(supported by Geadelmann’s Figure 4) with Hart’s use of scalable resolution
independent vector floorplan images representing physical space in a
building (supported by Hart Figure 2 and paragraphs 66 and 94) to provide
floor plan data that can be planned and zoomed. Final Act. 4–5. The
Examiner further combines Lee’s teaching of creating a scalable vector
Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694

7
graphics including graphical characteristics based on real-time sensor data
(supported by Lee paragraphs 81–84) to enable real-time application of
building management data within the scalable vector graphics. Id. at 9–10.
In view of the Examiner’s expressed combination of the teachings of the
prior art, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s proposed combination is
unclear or lacks any required element of claim 1.
Finally, Appellant argues that the combination of Geadelmann, Hart,
and Lee is improper because it is a reconstruction of Appellant’s claim based
solely on information gleaned from the Specification. Appeal Br. 16–18;
Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant argues that none of the cited prior art documents,
when considered individually, set forth the disputed limitation, and for that
reason, the Examiner’s combination is improperly based solely upon
guidance from the Specification. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 5.
It has been noted that,
[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill in the art 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 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Here, the Examiner finds motivation to combine Hart’s scalable
resolution independent vector floorplan image with Geadelmann’s building
floorplan representation and temperature data from building management
data in order to be able to pan and zoom the floorplan representation. Final
Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694

8
Act. 4–5. We agree that Hart supports this motivation, independently from
Appellant’s Specification. See, e.g., Hart ¶¶ 94, 97. The Examiner finds
motivation for combining Lee’s graphical representation of sensor data on a
scalable resolution independent floorplan with the aforementioned teachings
of Geadelmann and Hart in order to dynamically update the floorplan
characteristics with sensor data. Final Act. 10. We agree that Lee supports
this motivation, independently from Appellant’s Specification. See, e.g.,
Lee ¶¶ 82–84. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant argues against the rejections of claims 2–20 on the same
reasoning that we have found unpersuasive as to the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 18–22 (arguing, for example, “[f]or similar reasons to those
detailed above with respect to claim 1”). Accordingly, for the foregoing
reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims
2–20.
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1–20 as being obvious over the applied
references under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

Appeal 2020-000902
Application 14/938,694

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6,
11, 13–
16, 20
103 Geadelmann, Hart,
Lee
1, 3–6, 11,
13–16, 20

2, 12 103 Geadelmann, Hart,
Lee, Chegini
2, 12
7, 8, 17,
18
103 Geadelmann, Hart,
Lee, Hughes
7, 8, 17, 18
9, 10 103 Geadelmann, Hart,
Lee, Han
9, 10
19 103 Geadelmann, Hart,
Lee, Shi
19
Overall
Outcome
1–20

AFFIRMED