iControl Networks, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 2, 20212019006148 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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. 14/202,627 03/10/2014 Paul DAWES 102005.024124 3378 71581 7590 06/02/2021 BakerHostetler / Comcast Cira Centre, 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 EXAMINER JIANG, YONG HANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2021 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL DAWES, CAROLYN WALES, DANA BURD, and AARON WOOD Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–22. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as a subsidiary of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a communication protocols in integrated systems. Appellant’s Figure 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below. Appellant’s Figure 1 shows an integrated security system 100 which includes a gateway 102 (i.e., iHub) and security servers 104 coupled to the conventional home security system 110. See Spec. 15. Clients 120 may include custom-built clients can access the iConnect web services XML API to interact with the user’s home security and self-monitoring information. Id. 16–17. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 3 1. A system comprising: an interface device located at a premises and in communication with a security system located at the premises, wherein the interface device is configured to output: a security interface configured to control the security system and access data received by the security system, and a network interface configured to access, based on an event application programming interface (API), event data associated with a premises device, wherein the network interface is configured to send, to the premises device, a first uniform resource identifier associated with a function of a command API of the premises device; and a security server in communication with the interface device, wherein the security server is located external to the premises, wherein the security server comprises a client interface configured to communicate data between a user device and one or more of the interface device or the security system. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Saylor US 7,113,090 B1 Sept. 26, 2006 Conzola US 2006/0080465 A1 Apr. 13, 2006 Bathula US 2009/0260052 A1 Oct. 15, 2009 Garrett US 2011/0302497 A1 Dec. 8, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 8, 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. Final Act. 2–7. Claims 1–4, 6–11, 14–17, and 20–22 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Saylor (US 7,113,090 B1), and Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 4 further in view of Bathula (US 2009/0260052) and Garrett (US 2011/0302497). Final Act. 8. Claims 5, 12, 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Saylor in view of Bathula and Garrett, and further in view of Conzola (US 2006/0080465). Final Act. 12. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 8, 15 Provisional Non Statutory Double Patenting Rejections 14/202,505, 14/202,573, 14/202,579, 14/202,592, 14/202,685, 14/203,077, 14/203,084, 14/203,128, 14/203,141, 14/203,219 1–4, 6–11, 14–17, 20– 22 103(a) Saylor, Bathula, Garrett 5, 12, 18 103(a) Saylor, Bathula, Garrett, Conzola OPINION We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–22 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 5 A. Claims 1, 8, 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting Appellant does not respond to the various grounds of rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under provisional nonstatutory double patenting. See Final Act. 2–7 and Appeal Br. Accordingly, we affirm pro forma the various grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting of claims 1, 8, and 15, as enumerated in the Final Action. B. Claims 1, 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. (1). Does the combination of Saylor, Bathula and Garrett teach or suggest a system “wherein the network interface is configured to send, to the premise device, a first uniform resource identifier associated with a function of a command API of the premises device” as recited in claim 1? Appellant argues that the prior art does not teach the limitation “command, and an identifier associated with the command.” See Appeal Br. 5. Appellant further argues that Examiner’s finding that “the identification information is required to allow selection of the particular device” is complete conjecture. Id. 6. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. At the outset we clarify that the claim requires “a first uniform resource identifier associated with a function of a command API of the premises device.” See claims 1 and 8. We address Appellant’s argument regarding “command, and an identifier associated with the command” as it is a sub portion of the disputed limitation. See Appeal Br. 5. Saylor’s Figure 1 is reproduced below. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 6 Saylor’s Figure 1 shows a user device 160, a central security server 130 and personal property control panels 120, 122, and 124. The Examiner relies on Saylor to teach “identification information” wherein a control panel (120, 122, 124) may communicate information including an identification number of the control panel or identification number of the device issuing the alarm to a central security server 130. See Ans. 3 (citing Saylor col. 11, l. 64–col. 12, l. 14). More particularly, Saylor teaches a network interface configured to send to the premises device via the control panels 120, 122, 124, an identifier associated with a function of a command (i.e., identification number of the device issuing the alarm with a central security server 130 or control module enabling control of various different devices, such as turning lights on or off so that a home appears lived in). See col. 11. l. 64–col. 12, l. 14 and col. 15, l. 20–col. 15, l. 40. Other premises devices may include Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 7 panic button 212, motion sensor 214, motion contact 216 as shown in Figure 2. See Final Act. 8 (citing Fig. 2). The Examiner further relies on Saylor to teach a “command” wherein an Equipment Control Module 630 enables a user to control various appliances and devices within a user’s home wherein such commands include turning devices on and off. Id. (citing Saylor col. 15, lines 20–40). A user accesses a personal status page that includes the Equipment Control Module 630. See Saylor, col. 12, lines 48–53. Figure 1 of Saylor shows that the user (160) communicates with the control panel (120, 122, 124) via the central security server 130 and there is bidirectional communication as indicated by the arrows. See Fig. 1. Appellant further argues that the Equipment Control Module 630 of Saylor and the other teachings of Bathula and Garrett are not part of “an interface device located at a premises and in communication with a security system located at the premises.” Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner relies on Saylor for teaching “an interface device located at the premises” (i.e., home computer 242 or mobile device 240 with web-based interface) to control multiple security systems in the home. Final Act. 8 (citing col. 29, ll. 21–33, col. 7, l. 28–col. 8, l. 48, Fig. 2). That web based interface uses the Equipment Control Module 630. See Saylor, col. 12, ll. 42–53, col. 15, ll. 20–40. In other words, the user device computer or mobile when located at the premises would be “an interface device located at a premises” that can control multiple security systems including the control panel and other devices. Final Act. 8 (citing col. 15, ll. 20–40 and col. 11, l. 64–col. 12, l. 14). We note that while the computer or mobile device can remotely control security systems in the home such as sensors or Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 8 monitors, the user can also use the “home/remote” computer 242 or mobile device at any location including locally at the premises. See Final Act. 8 (citing col. 29, ll. 21–33). Furthermore the Equipment Control Module 630 enables a user to control various appliances and devices within a user’s home, such as turning devices on and off, and also allows a user to implement a schedule to turn the devices on and off. Final Act. 8 (citing col. 15, ll. 20–40). Appellant further argues that the Examiner mischaracterizes the combination of Saylor and Garrett being about sending to a premises device when the combination of Saylor and Garrett are about sending data to a central security network. Appeal. Br. 5. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Saylor’s Figure 11 is reproduced below. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 9 Saylor’s Figure 11 shows a subscriber 1120 sending commands via a “Browser 1128” that is in communication with “Website 1172”, “RDBMS 1130”, the “Central Security Server 1150”, the “Control Panel 1114”, sensors including contacts, motion, etc. 1112 wherein the control panel 1114 and sensors 1112 are located at the “Home 1110.” The Examiner finds, and we agree, that browser 1128 includes user interfaces to allow a subscriber 1120 to initiate a command such as activate alarm, request monitor data, report data and other information across networks via browser 1128. Final Act. 8 (citing col. 17, ll. 52–67). The Examiner further finds if a subscriber 1120 requests an action then the external central security server 1150 forwards the requested data to an identified location such as home 1110 and the control panel 1114 carries Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 10 out the user’s request such as an activation request. Final Act. 9 (citing col. 18, ll. 1–7) and see Fig. 11. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument the user interface allows the central security server to send data to the premises device to carry out a requested command. (2). Does the combination of Saylor, Bathula and Garrett teach or suggest that the command transmitted is based on a command API? Appellant argues that Bathula only teaches a generic statement about APIs but does not teach “the command transmitted is based on a command API.” See Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further argues that Bathula is directed to the problem of unauthorized privilege escalation and that the APIs are applied between the internal processes in Figures 3A and 3B of Bathula, thus the teachings of Bathula are about communication within a single computing device instead of communication between an interface device and a premises device. Id. 7. Appellant further argues that the teaching of “multiple APIs” is just a generic teaching with no mention of a command API or an event API as claimed. Id. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Appellant’s argument that Saylor and Bathula fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations fails to consider or address the proposed combined teachings. The Examiner relies on Saylor to teach an interface device that controls or commands different devices to turn on or off or operating in certain settings and using identification numbers associated with control panels and identification numbers of devices issuing the alarm so relevant Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 11 information received by the servers can be used by the central security system to issue an appropriate action to the specific type of alarm (i.e., smoke, motion, panic). See Final Act. 8–9 (citing Saylor col. 15, ll. 20–40 and Saylor col. 11, l. 64–col. 12, l. 14 describing “relevant information regarding the nature of the alarm”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Saylor teaches identifiers of all the equipment and communication between the central security network (i.e., security server), the control panels (i.e., security system at premises), and devices at the home such as appliances or sensors (i.e., premises device). The Examiner relies on Bathula to teach that a system may include multiple application programming interfaces (APIs) to allow communication without conflicts. Ans. 3. For example, APIs include a SendMessage API (210), a SetProp API (220), and a keybd_event API (230). See Ans. 3 (citing Bathula para. 16). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bathula teaches that various APIs can be created to facilitate a function, and as such, a skilled artisan would access event data using an event API and transmit a command based on a command API to allow for a generation of a command to control a particular device selected by a user. Ans. 3–4. The skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. Appellants have not presented any evidence demonstrating that the modification would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, at 418). (3). Does the combination of Saylor, Bathula and Garrett teach or suggest a first uniform resource identifier associated with a function of a command API of the premises? Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 12 Appellant argues that Garrett does not teach that the server is a “premise device” and does not teach a uniform resource locator (URL) is “associated with a function of a command API of the premises device.” See Appeal Br. 8. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner does not rely on the server as being the “premise device.” Furthermore, with respect to the URL, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. Keller at 426. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Saylor teaches the premise devices, Bathula teaches the use of API, and Garrett teaches that a URL can be associated with a function of a command. Final Act. 10. In particular, the Examiner cites to Garrett for teaching that a URL can be associated with a function of a command. Id. (citing Garrett para. 95). Garrett states: [a]t step 420, the user may provide instructions or commands to the broadband gateway 102 regarding a customized user interface and its source. For example, the user may activate one or more keys on the input device 300 to convey information to the broadband gateway 102 regarding a preferred user interface and the source of an associated user interface application that can generate the desired user interface. The information conveyed may comprise a uniform resource locator (URL) or other type of resource identifier, for example. The broadband gateway 102 may receive the information and may generate a request to download an instance of the user interface application from a server associated with the URL. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 13 Para. 95 (emphases added). As such, we agree with the Examiner that Garrett teaches a first uniform resource identifier, and in particular a URL associated with commands. Id. As discussed supra, Saylor teaches that the central security server 130 (i.e., network interface) when instructed by the Equipment Control Module 630 to send a command to the control panel (120, 122, 124) to command a premises device would have to use an identifier to remotely control the correct “appliances and devices” such as “turn devices on and off.” See Saylor, col. 12, ll. 48–53 and Fig. 1. Alternatively stated, Saylor teaches a subscriber 1120 that uses an interface via browser 1128 to initiate a command such as activate an alarm, request monitor data, report data and other information, and the command includes identification information to allow sending the command to a particular device. See Final Act. 8–9 (citing col. 17, ll. 52–67, col. 15, ll. 20–40, col. 11, l. 64–col. 12, l. 14 and Fig. 11). Bathula teaches that a system may include multiple application programming interfaces (APIs) to allow communication without conflicts; for example, APIs include a SendMessage API (210), a SetProp API (220), and a keybd_event API (230). Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that based on Bathula’s teaching of creating various APls to facilitate a function, one skilled in the art would be able to create a command API to allow generation of a command to control a particular device selected by a user. See Ans. 3–4 (citing Bathula para. 16). Garrett teaches a first uniform resource identifier (i.e. URL) associated with commands. Final Act. 10 (citing para. 95). Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 14 Therefore, the combination of Saylor, Bathula and Garrett teaches or suggests a first uniform resource identifier associated with a function of a command API. C. Is the combination of Saylor, Bathula and Garrett proper? (1). Is the combination of Saylor and Bathula proper? Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill would not take a teaching about using internal APIs between subroutines in a single device to prevent escalation as taught by Bathula to modify Saylor to teach sending a command from an interface device to a premise device using a command API because the Examiner relies on Bathula’s generic teaching of “multiple APIs” and does not provide a teaching from the cited art or elsewhere to suggest why one of ordinary skill in the art would use internal APIs for preventing privilege escalation as a means for communication between different devices. See Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues that Examiner fails to consider the prior art as a whole and that one of ordinary skill would not take the teachings of Bathula related to internal APIs and privilege escalation to modify Saylor to teach sending a command from an interface device to a premises device using a command API. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion, and find that the Examiner has provided an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner concludes that Bathula teaches that the APIs can be used to develop software applications and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the APIs as taught by Bathula to the commands as taught by Saylor to allow communication between interfaces Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 15 of different devices thereby avoiding errors in communication. See Final Act. 9. Appellant does not provide any evidence sufficient to demonstrate that combining the teachings in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. FisherPrice, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellant further argues that the proposed combination of Saylor and Bathula also renders the teachings of Bathula unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Bathula is directed to the problem in which “[s]oftware applications can be subject to computer security breaches using improper or unauthorized control messages from another application” to prevent “privilege escalation” in the same computing device, and Bathula does not provide a teaching to show communication between multiple devices. See Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further argues that changing the API of Bathula to send commands between devices instead of between subroutines would render the API of Bathula unsatisfactory for preventing privilege escalation within a device, for example, the APIs would no longer manage internal communicate, thus allowing unauthorized privilege escalation. Id. Appellant similarly argues that the proposed combination requires an impermissible change in Bathula’s principle of operation. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the relevant issue is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 16 ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the primary reference Saylor is modified by Bathula to include APIs for the benefit of better communication between components by using APIs. See Ans. 4–5. Saylor is directed to a security system where a user may personalize alert notifications for various security devices wherein a user may monitor a security status via a web interface and provide special instructions via a central security network. See Saylor col. 5, ll. 19–36. Modifying Saylor to allow the user to provide instructions with API as taught by Bathula would not render Saylor inoperable of monitoring and instructing various devices in the home. (2). Does the Examiner provide a proper rationale to support the proposed combination of Saylor, Bathula and Garrett? Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Saylor and Bathula to include a first uniform resource identifier associated with a function to a command API of the premises in order to allow retrieval of information associated with a command, thereby provide information as requested by a user” is a generic idea of receiving information. See Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further argues that such a generic teaching does not show why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to take a teaching about downloading a user interface based on a server URL to inform a combination that teaches “wherein the network interface is configured to Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 17 send, to the premises device, a first uniform resource identifier associated with a function of a command API of the premises.” Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies on Garrett to teach that information may comprise a uniform resource locator (URL) or other type of resource locator, and that a gateway may receive the information and generate a request to download an instance of the user interface application from a server associated with a uniform resource locator. See Garrett Par. 95. The Examiner relies on Saylor to teach that a user uses an Equipment Control Module 630 to remotely control various appliances and devices within a user’s home. See Saylor col. 15, ll. 20–40. We note that a user accesses the Equipment Control Module 630 via a personal status page which may be accessed via a website through the internet. Id. col. 12, ll. 48–53. As shown in Saylor’s Figure 1, the commands are routed from the user 160 via the central security server 130 to the control panels (120, 122, 124) located at the premises. See Fig. 1. The Examiner concludes that Garrett teaches that the URL or other type of resource locator is used to provide an address to retrieve data/application needed for a command to allow retrieval of information associated with the command. See Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion, and find that the Examiner has provided an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Garrett teaches the use of a URL or other type of resource identifier that enables a gateway to download information associated with the URL. See Garrett para. 95. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 18 The Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Although Appellant argues that Garrett does not specifically teach that the URL is sent to the premises device or that the URL is associated with a function of a command API of the premises device as claimed, the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. We agree with the Examiner’s articulated rationale to combine the teaching of Garrett with the teachings of Bathula and Saylor to provide an address to retrieve data/application needed to allow retrieval of information associated with a command. Ans. 5. Appellant does not provide any evidence sufficient to demonstrate that combining the teachings in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. FisherPrice, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellant further argues that none of the cited references teach that the URL is sent “to the premises device” or that the URL is “associated with a function of a command API of the premises device” as claimed. See Appeal Br. 12. Appellant again reiterates that there is no specific teaching of a “command API” or resource identifiers in the context of a premises device, which are not conventionally known to use such a mechanism for processing commands. Id. 12–13. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 19 We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. Keller at 426. Appellant’s argument that Saylor, Bathula and Garrett fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations is unpersuasive of error because the arguments fail to consider or address the combined teachings as discussed supra. Appellant further argues that the modification is not based on any of the exemplary rationales provided in MPEP § 2143 and that the proposed motivation fails to articulate the findings required for such a rejection as explained in MPEP § 2143, and that the Examiner does not cite to any teaching “in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art” that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. See Appeal Br. 13. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner provides a rationale to combine the teachings of Bathula with Saylor which is to allow communication of commands between interfaces of different devices using a clearly defined method of using APIs thereby avoiding conflicts. See Ans. 5. The Examiner provides a rationale of combining the teaching of Garrett with the combination of Saylor and Bathula which is to use a resource locator such as a URL to provide a correct address from which to retrieve data/application needed for a command to allow retrieval of correct information associated with the command. Id. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 20 (3). Does the combination of Saylor, Bathula and Garrett rely on impermissible hindsight? Appellant argues that the Examiner uses the secondary reference Garrett to modify another secondary reference Bathula. See Appeal Br. 13. Appellant contends that the Examiner cites Bathula to modify the primary reference Saylor as teaching the concept transmitting a command “based on a command API” and then further modifies the command transmitted based on the command API with the teachings of Garrett to teach “a first uniform resource identifier associated with a function of a command API of the premises device,” thus the teachings of Garrett are cited to modify the alleged teaching of a command API from Bathula. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 420. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the rationale to modify the security system network of Saylor with the API as taught by Bathula is to allow communication between the interfaces of different devices using clearly defined method using APIs thereby avoiding conflicts in communication. See Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that the rationale to modify the combination of Saylor and Bathula with the URL as taught by Garrett is to provide an address to retrieve data/application needed for a command to allow retrieval of correct information associated with the command. Id. Appellant further argues that Examiner’s reasoning is impermissible hindsight because the Examiner’s overly complex reasoning is inconsistent Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 21 with the analysis of the reasoning of one of ordinary skill in the art as required by case law and because the Examiner’s analysis is well-beyond the simple rationales provided by the court as in MPEP § 2143. See Appeal Br. 14–15. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Combining Saylor’s teaching of software commands sent by the user 160 via the Equipment Control Module 630 to the central security server 130 to the control panels (120, 122, 124) with Bathula’s application programming interface (APIs) and Garrett’s URLs to download information associated with the URL uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Therefore, the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. We note that the primary reference Saylor also teaches the use of APIs. See Saylor col. 18, ll. 46–57 and Figure 12b. (C). Claims 5, 8–12, 14–18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. We also affirm the rejection of claims 8–11, 14–17 and 20 not argued separately. We also affirm the rejection of claims 5, 12 and 18 over Saylor, Bathula, Garrett, in further view of Conzola not argued separately. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, 14–18 and 20–22 is AFFIRMED. Appeal 2019-006148 Application 14/202,627 22 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 8, 15 Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting 14/202,505, 14/202,573, 14/202,579, 14/202,592, 14/202,685, 14/203,077, 14/203,084, 14/203,128, 14/203,141, 14/203,219 1, 8, 15 1–4, 6–11, 14–17, 20– 22 103(a) Saylor, Bathula, Garrett 1–4, 6–11, 14–17, 20– 22 5, 12, 18 103(a) Saylor, Bathula, Garrett, Conzola 5, 12, 18 Overall Outcome 1–12, 14– 18, 20–22 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