Ex Parte Bairagi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 201612411183 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/411,183 90545 7590 HONEYWELL/STW Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 0312512009 03/02/2016 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Abhijit Bairagi 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. H0021919-1161.1399101 4660 EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com Honeywell. USPTO@STWiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ABHIJIT BAIRAGI, ANKUR JHAWAR, SIDDHARTH GHULE, and PALLA VI DHARWADA Appeal2014-001969 Application 12/411,183 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal the Final Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-001969 Application 12/411,183 Introduction The invention relates to a "navigation approach having a data filtering and sorting for a user interface with a small screen display" in which "[t]he user interface may be used with a building control system" and "[t]he sorting may be accomplished with a single button filter/sort key." Abstract. Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for operating a screen display for a building control system, comprising: providing a screen display for showing images; observing a first image showing a home page having one or more buttons for representing components of a building control system; activating a button of the one or more buttons to get a second image showing one or more zone icons; and activating a sort button to sort two or more zone icons according to a default or a selected criterion. 1 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1--4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cardio Manual, Secant Home Automation 1 We note that the "activating a button" step may only produce a second image showing one zone icon, whereas the "activating a sort button" step requires at least two zone icons. Should there be further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. While the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 2 Appeal2014-001969 Application 12/411,183 Inc. ("Cardio"), in view of Kirkpatrick (US 6,691,138 Bl; issued February 10, 2004). Answer 2. Claims 5, 12, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cardio, in view of Kirkpatrick, and further in view of Killian (US 2005/0097478 Al; published May 5, 2005). Answer 2. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cardio, in view of Kirkpatrick, and further in view of Poster (US 5,181,653; issued January 26, 1993). Answer 2. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 15, 2013), the Answer (mailed October 3, 2013), the Final Rejection (mailed November 29, 2012) and the Reply Brief (filed December 3, 2013) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief and adopt them as our own, except as to any findings that we set aside in the analysis as follows. Appellants first argue Cardio and Kirkpatrick fail to disclose or suggest the limitation of a "activating a sort button to sort two or more zone icons according to a default or a selected criterion," as recited in claim 1, because "[t]he Examiner errs in relying upon Kirkpatrick to teach sorting 3 Appeal2014-001969 Application 12/411,183 two or more zone icons." Appeal Brief 13. Appellants contend Kirkpatrick's "list of parameter-value pairs is a single element ... and does not function as an icon" and "[t]he rearrangement of text within the displayed list does not teach sorting of two or more icons within a displayed second image." Appeal Brief 14. We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. The Examiner broadly and reasonably finds Cardio' s buttons correspond to Appellants' claimed "zone icons," because "once a button is pressed, for example 'Lighting', the screen changes to show different rooms interpreted as zones (Cardio, page 4)." Final Action 3, italics in original. Thus the Examiner correctly finds the claim limitation reads on Cardio. Appellants do not challenge this finding; see, for example, Reply Brief 3, describing, but not contradicting, that the Examiner "specifically has identified" portions of Cardio's page 4 screen illustration as "zone icons." Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of error because Appellants attack Kirkpatrick individually, and thus fail to address the Examiner's findings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding one of skill in the art would configure Cardio' s zone icons using the sorting teachings of Kirkpatrick. See Final Action 3--4. Appellants additionally argue the Examiner has used "impermissible hindsight" as evidenced by the Examiner's motivation for the combination of the references. Appeal Brief 16-17. The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to combine the references "in order to arrange the information 4 Appeal2014-001969 Application 12/411,183 in a configuration management user interface pertaining to user importance" and "in order to find items in the list quicker when the list is extensive and requires more than one display to present all items in the list." Answer 5---6. We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive and agree with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.2 Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error and therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 6 and 13, not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Brief 17-18. We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, and 14--20, not separately argued for the reasons articulated above. DECISION The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 2 The Examiner has satisfied the obviousness test by showing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'!. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation