Ex Parte Brandsma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

13692973 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/692,973 12/03/2012
65913 7590 09/21/2018
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ewout Brandsma
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.
81426156US03 2932
EXAMINER
BROWN, VERNAL U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EWOUT BRANDSMA, MAARTEN CHRISTIAAN
PENNINGS, TIMO VAN ROERMUND, and
STEP AN DRUDE 1
Appeal2018-001566
Application 13/692,973
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-22. 2 Claims 2--4 and 10 were
canceled by amendment. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Applicant is NXP B.V.
2 Although claim 14 remains pending, the Examiner did not specifically
include claim 14 in any statement of rejection in the Final Rejection.
Appellants do not address claim 14 in the Appeal Brief. Accordingly, claim
14 is not before us on appeal.
Appeal2018-001566
Application 13/692,973
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to localizing a host device in a control
system, for example, a building control system. Spec. 1 :7-8. More
specifically, the application describes determining the location of a host
device, such as a sensor, a luminary, or an HVAC-related actuator, by using
a localization device that comprises means for automatically and/or
manually determining location. Spec. 4:22-27. For example, an automatic
positioning system may be used to provide a coarse location by zooming a
map on a touch screen interface to display part of a building, and a user can
provide a refined location by touching a position on the map. See Spec.
7:18-8:3. After determining a host device location, a control relationship
can be established between the host device and other host devices, for
example, between a temperature sensor, a temperature control knob, and a
heater in the same room. Spec. 15:32-16:9. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A locating method for locating a host device in a control
system, the locating method comprising:
determining geographical location information of the host
device by a combination of coarse positioning by automatic
means prior to refining of automatically determined geographical
location information by manual means, relative to a localization
device when the localization device is brought in close proximity
of the host device for Near Field Communication (NFC), wherein
the localization device is configured to refine a coarse
geographical location information from the automatic means by
sensing a touched position on a map;
associating the geographical location information with a
unique identifier of the host device, wherein the localization
2
Appeal2018-001566
Application 13/692,973
device determines the geographical location information of the
host device based on its own geographical location and writes the
geographical location information into a memory unit of the host
device, and the host device associates the geographical location
information with its unique identifier; and
using the geographical location information of the host
device to establish a localized control relationship in a particular
room between the host device and further host devices in the
particular room, wherein the localized control relationship is
inferred from relative locations in the particular room of the host
device and the further host devices.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 5, 11-13, and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over de Clerq et al. (US 7,363,028 B2; Apr.
22, 2008) and Kemink et al. (US 6,563,430 Bl; May 13, 2003).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over de Clerq, Kemink, and Thakker et al. (US 6,487,425 B 1;
Nov. 26, 2002).
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over de Clerq, Kemink, Thakker, and Balsan et al. (US
2013/0104238 Al; Apr. 25, 2013).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over de Clerq, Kemink, and Norris (US 5,781,150; July 14,
1998).
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over de Clerq, Kemink, and Hayes et al. (US 2005/0159823
Al; July 21, 2005).
3
Appeal2018-001566
Application 13/692,973
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of de Clerq and Kemink
discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that de Clerq
teaches "using the geographical location information of the host device to
establish a localized control relationship in a particular room between the
host device and further host devices in the particular room." Ans. 3--4.
Appellants contend de Clerq fails to teach this feature, namely, because
"rather than providing for localized control relationships in a particular
room, de Clerq uses these signal devices to enable device 10 to act as a
universal remote control." App. Br. 5 (emphasis removed). Appellants have
persuaded us of Examiner error.
De Clerq discloses "a controlling device 10 (e.g., a wireless, universal
remote control) that is adapted to transmit location determination signals
( e.g., a signal request) as well as command codes to control the operation of
one or more home appliances 12." de Clerq, col. 2, 11. 60-64. In one
embodiment, the controlling device sends a radio frequency (RF) signal
request that is received by multiple signaling devices 14 ( which may be
separate or integrated into the appliances 12 (de Clerq, col. 4, 11. 32-37)),
which in tum transmit infrared (IR) signal responses. de Clerq, col. 5, 11.
64---67. The controlling device only receives signal responses from signaling
devices in the same room because IR signals are attenuated by solid
obstructions. de Clerq, col. 6, 11. 1-5. In an alternative embodiment, the
controlling device receives both RF and IR signal responses in order to
determine which appliances are in RF range, but not within the same room
as the controlling device. de Clerq, col. 6, 11. 39--45. The controlling device
uses its location relative to the appliances to configure itself such that
"command sets ... , controlling device states, favorite channel lineups,
4
Appeal2018-001566
Application 13/692,973
and/or macro commands ... are presented to a user automatically." de
Clerq, col. 4, 11. 11-19.
Claim 1 recites "the localization device determines the geographical
location information of the host device" and uses "the geographical location
information of the host device to establish a localized control relationship in
a particular room between the host device and further host devices." The
Examiner has not shown de Clerq teaches using location information
determined by a localization device to establish a control relationship
between other devices. Rather, as discussed above, de Clerq's controlling
device uses location information-i.e., IR response signals received from
appliances in the same room-to configure itself to command appliances
(see de Clerq, col. 4, 11. 11-19; col. 5, 1. 64---col. 6, 1. 5; col. 6, 11. 39-45), not
to establish a control relationship between appliances.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claim 11 which includes
the steps of claim 1 by reference, and dependent claims 5-9, 12, 13, and 15-
22 for similar reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 5-9, 11-
13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5