Ex Parte Bairagi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12411183 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

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