Carrier Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 17, 2021

2020003778 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 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.
15/968,010 05/01/2018 Sumanth Kumar Mukundala 100714US01;
60246-720PUS1
1167
179302 7590 08/17/2021
Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C./Carrier Corporation
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48073
EXAMINER
JIANG, YONG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2021 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SUMANTH KUMAR MUKUNDALA,
ADAM KUENZI, and STEVE SWITZER
________________

Appeal 2020-003778
Application 15/968,010
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JASON J. CHUNG, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention relates to a smart lock system for a hotel or similar
building. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, United Technologies Corp. is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003778
Application 15/968,010
2
1. A door lock system comprising:
a controller including a processor and a memory and being
configured to interface with a smart lock;
an exterior face plate on a first side of a door;
an interior face plate on a second side of the door, the
second side of the door facing an interior of a room while the
door is in a closed position; and
a display screen disposed in said interior face plate, the
display screen being connected to the controller, wherein the
display screen is an input device and an output device.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 11, 13, 14, and 17–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy (US
2017/0221290 A1; published Aug. 3, 2017), Black (US 2013/0088320 A1;
published Apr. 11, 2013), and Yumoto (US 2007/0033415 A1; published
Feb. 8, 2007). Final Act. 2–6.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, and Park
(US 2007/0102511 A1; published May 10, 2007). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, Park, and
Kolls (US 5,619,024; issued Apr. 8, 1997). Final Act. 7.
The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, Park, and
Hefner (US 2005/0284930 A1; published Dec. 29, 2005). Final Act. 7–8.
Appeal 2020-003778
Application 15/968,010
3
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, and Singh
(US 2015/0284976 A1; published Oct. 8, 2015). Final Act. 8.2
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, and Izumi
(US 2007/0035745 A1; published Feb. 15, 2007). Final Act. 8–9.3
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, and
Candelore (US 2013/0232524 A1; published Sept. 5, 2013). Final Act. 9.
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, and
Kasower (US 2007/0043577 A1; published Feb. 22, 2007). Final Act. 9–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 21–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, and Al-
Qassem (US 2009/0249693 A1; published Oct. 8, 2009). Final Act. 10–11.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Allibhoy teaches connecting a processor and
memory to a smart lock. Final Act. 3 (citing Allibhoy ¶ 39, Figs. 2–3). The
Examiner finds that Black teaches a guest room has an input device or
programming to operate a touch screen interface. Final Act. 4 (citing Black

2 The Examiner refers to this combination as Allibhoy, Yumoto, Black, and
Singh. Final Act. 8. However, claim 9 depends from claim 1 (i.e., rejected
over the combination of Allibhoy, Black, and Yumoto) indirectly. We,
therefore, interpret this as a typographical error and refer to this combination
as Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, and Singh.
3 The Examiner refers to this combination as Allibhoy, Yumoto, Black, and
Izumi, but we interpret this as a typographical error and refer to this as
Allibhoy, Black, Yumoto, and Izumi. See n.2.
Appeal 2020-003778
Application 15/968,010
4
¶¶ 24–26, 37). Moreover, the Examiner finds Yumoto teaches integrating an
interior side of a door lock with a touch screen. Final Act. 4 (citing Yumoto
¶¶ 83, 84, Fig. 3). In addition, the Examiner finds that electronic devices
can be integrated or can be separate devices. Final Act. 4 (citing MPEP
§ 2144). The Examiner concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention (hereinafter “PHOSITA”) would combine
Allibhoy, Black, and Yumoto to integrate a display with an input device and
an output device in order to have less components, which makes installation
of a security system easier. Ans. 3; Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues the Examiner does not provide the requisite
evidence to establish a sufficient obviousness rationale. Appeal Br. 3–4.
Furthermore, Appellant argues that incorporating Black’s display into
Allibhoy’s faceplate would make installation of a faceplate more difficult
because door systems have physical space limitations and once they are
installed, they cannot be moved easily to facilitate wireless/wired data
connections. Id. at 3. In addition, Appellant argues the Examiner’s rationale
is flawed because it relies on a “making things integral” obviousness
reasoning where a single reference has all of the components. Id. at 4. We
disagree with Appellant.
Appellant’s first argument pertaining to the lack of requisite evidence
to support a sufficient obviousness rationale is unavailing. Appeal Br. 3–4.
The Examiner finds that Black and Yumoto teach a lock with an integrated
display. Final Act. 4 (citing Black ¶¶ 24–26, 37; Yumoto ¶¶ 83, 84, Fig. 3).
Notably, Appellant does not proffer specific arguments to address Yumoto,
which illustrates an integrated display and locking system. Final Act. 4
(citing Yumoto ¶¶ 83, 84, Fig. 3).
Appeal 2020-003778
Application 15/968,010
5
Appellant’s second argument pertaining to the difficulty of combining
Allibhoy and Black is not based on evidence. That is, Appellant provides no
declaration or other form of evidence to support its assertions. Rather,
Appellant’s assertions essentially consist of attorney argument, which does
not persuade us the Examiner erred. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“attorney argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence
that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”).
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s reliance on MPEP § 2144 is
flawed because it “refers to instances where a single reference has all the
components,” is unavailing. Appeal Br. 4. While MPEP § 2144 discusses a
case in which the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure
disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering
choice, MPEP § 2144 does not require that the integration of components be
within one reference only. Id.; Ans. 4.
As discussed above, the Examiner concludes that a PHOSITA would
combine Allibhoy, Black, and Yumoto to integrate a display with an input
device and an output device in order to have less components, which makes
installation of a security system easier. Ans. 3; Final Act. 4. We agree, and
therefore, determine the Examiner has set forth sufficient “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appellant has not
shown that integrating the display would have been uniquely challenging or
otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161–62 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(“Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been
commonplace in recent years.”).
Appeal 2020-003778
Application 15/968,010
6
Appellant does not argue claims 2–22 separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 3–5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1 and 13; and (2) dependent claims 2–12 and 14–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 11,
13, 14,
17–19
103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto
1–5, 11,
13, 14,
17–19

6, 15 103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto, Park
6, 15
7, 16 103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto, Park,
Kolls
7, 16
8 103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto, Park,
Hefner
8
9 103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto, Singh
9
10 103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto, Izumi
10
12 103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto,
Candelore
12
20 103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto, Kasower
20
Appeal 2020-003778
Application 15/968,010
7
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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

21, 22 103 Allibhoy, Black,
Yumoto, Al-
Qassem
21, 22
Overall
Outcome
1–22