iControl Networks, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2019006148 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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.
14/202,627 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