Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 19, 2021

2020005178 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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. 15/529,148 05/24/2017 Satoru MURAMATSU 129D_134_TN 6577 23400 7590 11/19/2021 POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC 12040 SOUTH LAKES DRIVE SUITE 101 RESTON, VA 20191 EXAMINER GAMI, TEJAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2117 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/19/2021 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): dposz@poszlaw.com mailbox@poszlaw.com tvarndell@poszlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATORU MURAMATSU Appeal 2020-005178 Application 15/529,148 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., CHRISTA P. ZADO, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-005178 Application 15/529,148 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “an air conditioner configured to be capable of storing therein a setting value of a function setting.” Spec. ¶ 10. Claims 1–16 are pending. Appeal Br. 23–27. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. An air conditioner comprising: a remote controller; and an indoor unit, wherein the remote controller and the indoor unit are configured to be able to communicate with each other, wherein the indoor unit comprises: a switch configured to switch a plurality of different function settings of the air conditioner; and a memory configured to store therein a setting value of a function setting, of the plurality of different function settings, set by the switch, wherein the setting value stored in the memory responsive to setting by the switch is rewritable according to an instruction from the remote controller to switch the function setting set by the switch to a different function setting, and the function settings of the air conditioner are defined by the setting values stored in the memory. References and Rejections Claims 1–5 and 8–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano (US 2008/0217417 A1, pub. Sept. 11, 2008). Non-Final Act. 2. Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano in view of Terlson et al. (US 2006/0004492 A1, pub. Jan. 5, 2006). Non-Final Act. 8. Appeal 2020-005178 Application 15/529,148 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “Hatano has no teaching or suggestion that ‘a setting value of a function setting ...’ is both ‘set by the switch’ and ‘is rewritable’ by the remote controller.” Appeal Br. 18. Particularly, Appellant contends “Hatano’s control data never changes the specific model, which is what is switched (selected) by the model selector 31.” Appeal Br. 18. We are persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 1 recites the memory is configured to store “a setting value . . . set by the switch,” and this setting value is “rewritable according to an instruction from the remote controller.” That is, the claim requires a setting value is configured by both the switch and the remote controller. See, e.g., Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.”) (internal quotations and formatting omitted). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not identified a teaching in the cited art for such a setting value. See Appeal Br. 18. The Examiner finds “Appellant’s claimed ‘switch’ is depicted by prior art ‘model selector 31,’” which “‘selects the driving data proper to a specific model out of the data of a plurality of models.’” Ans. 5; Hatano ¶ 40 (“The data for driving the compressor is appropriately selected and determined by model selector 31, e.g. at the production stage.”). The Examiner further finds the claimed “instruction from the remote controller” is taught by “Hatano’s teach[ing of] ‘rewritable memory as outdoor data memory 29, and allows indoor controller 10 (i.e., claimed ‘remote controller’) to transmit the control data, which is proper to a specific model (i.e., claimed ‘switch’).” Appeal 2020-005178 Application 15/529,148 4 Ans. 5; Hatano ¶ 44 (“a rewritable memory as outdoor data memory 29, and allows indoor controller 10 to transmit the control data, which is proper to a specific model”). That Hatano’s memory, itself, is rewriteable, however, is not the same as the claimed rewriteable value. Claim 1 requires the “setting value” to be rewritable by the remote controller. See Appeal Br. 12. Hatano, in contrast, teaches the driving data (mapped to settings value, see Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 5) is not changed by remote controller. See Appeal Br. 18; Hatano ¶44 (“writes the received control data into outdoor data memory 29 only when the agreement is found between the model information received from indoor controller 10 and the model selected by model selector”) (emphasis added). Nor does the Examiner present reasoning to modify Hatano to rewrite the driving data from the remote controller, as claimed. See Reply Br. 9. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has not shown the limitations of claim 1 are obvious in view of Hatano. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejections of the claims dependent thereon. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 8–14 103 Hatano 1–5, 8–14 6, 7, 15, 16 103 Hatano, Terlson 6, 7, 15, 16 Overall Outcome 1–16 Appeal 2020-005178 Application 15/529,148 5 REVERSED