Ex Parte Geadelmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

11833685 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111833,685
90545 7590
HONEYWELL/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
08/03/2007
10/04/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Levi H. Geadelmann
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.
H0014761-1161.1321101 8317
EXAMINER
RUBY, TRAVIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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 LEVI H. GEADELMANN and DANIEL J. SULLIVAN
Appeal2013-008283
Application 11/833,685
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Levi H. Geadehnann and Daniel J. Sullivan ("Appellants") 1 appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims
1-11, 13-21, and 29-32, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal
Br. 7-18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2013-008283
Application 11/833,685
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosed invention relates "generally to thermostats and
more particularly to thermostats adapted for use with fan coils." Spec., p. 1,
11. 4--5. Claims 1, 13, and 29 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A fan coil thermostat for use with a fan coil system, the
fan coil thermostat comprising:
a controller implementing a control algorithm that is
configured to at least partially control one or more components
of the fan coil system, the control algorithm including an Auto
fan speed mode;
a user interface; and
a timer controlled by the controller;
wherein, while in the Auto fan speed mode, the controller
permits a user to manually select a fan speed from two or more
non-zero fan speeds using the user interface, the controller
initiating the timer in response to the user manually selecting
the fan speed, and once the timer expires, the controller always
returning to the Auto fan speed mode; and
wherein, while waiting for the timer to expire, the
controller restarts the timer upon a single button press of a
predetermined button of the user interface.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Imaoka
Mehta
Toth
us 5,261,483
us 5,528,229
US 6,318,639 B 1
2
Nov. 16, 1993
June 18, 1996
Nov. 20, 2001
Appeal2013-008283
Application 11/833,685
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review: 2
I. Claims 1-11, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toth and Mehta.
II. Claims 13-21, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Imaoka and Toth.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I- Claims 1-11, 31, and 32 as unpatentable
over Toth and Mehta
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from Toth
and Mehta renders obvious the limitations of these claims. Ans. 4--10.
Appellants argue that at least one of Toth and Mehta is deficient in teaching
certain aspects of the claims, including limitations of the controller always
returning to an "Auto fan speed mode" following a manual override, and the
manual override being restarted upon a "single button press," as claimed.
See Appeal Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2-5. After careful consideration of the
record before us, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's factual findings from Toth and Mehta, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, or the Examiner's reasonable determination
of obviousness, which is rationally articulated based on the prior art
teachings. In short, we sustain Rejection I based on the reasoned position set
2 We note that a rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking written description, has been
withdrawn by the Examiner and thus is not before us for review as part of
the instant appeal. Ans. 17.
3
Appeal2013-008283
Application 11/833,685
forth in the Examiner's Answer and in light of the thorough responses to
Appellants' arguments. See Ans. 4--10; 17-21. We address Appellants'
principle arguments below simply as a matter of emphasis.
Specifically, Appellants contend that Toth, as relied on in the
rejection, does not teach that the controller always returns to an "Auto fan
speed mode," as recited in the claims, but instead would return to some
mode of operation based on a programmed schedule of the thermostat. See
Appeal Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2--4. This contention is unpersuasive of error.
Although we appreciate Appellants' observation that Toth also teaches
additional modes of operation from which a manual override could be
initiated, such additional modes do not disturb the Examiner's reasoned
position that-in a situation where Toth's system is simply programmed to
remain in the auto mode-the system would then always return back to this
mode (auto mode) upon expiration of the manual override based on the
programmed schedule. See Ans. 5; see also id. at 17-18. Initiating the
manual override from anything other than an auto mode is simply not
relevant to the analysis of claim 1, which only encompasses initiating the
manual override "while in the Auto fan speed mode," so Toth's other modes
logically were not relied upon in the rejection ofrecord. 3 See Ans. 5;
Appeal Br., Claims App.
3 We note, moreover, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an
"Auto fan speed mode," as recited in the claims, does not preclude any of
Toth's modes (such as an automatic mode, a time mode, and a continuous
mode) from reasonably being considered an "Auto fan speed mode," as the
claims do not impart any requirements (such as controlling a plurality of
fixed, non-zero speeds) for what the recited "Auto fan speed mode" must
entail. See Appeal Br., Claims App.
4
Appeal2013-008283
Application 11/833,685
Appellants also contend that the combined teachings of Toth and
Mehta, as relied on in the rejection, do not teach that the "controller restarts
the timer upon a single button press" of the interface, as recited in the
claims. See Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 4--5. This contention is also
unpersuasive of error. We agree with the Examiner's reasoned position that
Toth's disclosure of selecting a different time period for the manual override
(which would replace any previously selected time period) sufficiently
teaches the function of restarting the timer (see Ans. 5; 18-19), and that
Mehta teaches an override function that is actuated with a single button press
(see id. at 5---6; 18). The Examiner's determination that the combined
teachings of Toth and Mehta renders obvious the feature of restarting a
manual override timer with a single button press is reasonable, and
Appellants do not explain how such a modification to Toth-using a single
button press to actuate a function on a controller-would be unpredictable or
somehow beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We note that any other arguments not specifically addressed in detail
herein have been thoroughly considered by the panel but are not persuasive
for the reasons discussed supra and those well expressed in the Examiner's
Answer.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine that the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness is well-founded. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1-11, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Toth and Mehta.
5
Appeal2013-008283
Application 11/833,685
Rejection II- Claims 13-21, 29, and 30 as unpatentable
over Imaoka and Toth
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from
Imaoka and Toth renders obvious the limitations of these claims.
Ans. 10-17. Of particular relevance, the Examiner relied on the same
teachings from Toth discussed supra in the context of Rejection I.
Appellants argue that at least one of Imaoka and Toth is deficient in teaching
certain aspects of the claims-namely, the limitation of the controller always
returning to an "Auto fan speed mode" following a manual override, as
claimed. See Appeal Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 5---6. After careful consideration
of the record before us, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's factual findings from Imaoka and Toth, which are supported
by a preponderance of the evidence, or the Examiner's reasonable
determination of obviousness, which is rationally articulated based on the
prior art teachings. In short, we sustain Rejection II based on the reasoned
position set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in light of the thorough
responses to Appellants' arguments. See Ans. 10-17; 21-24.
In particular, Appellants advance substantially the same contentions
regarding alleged shortcomings of Toth as discussed supra in the context of
Rejection I. For substantially the same reasons, these contentions remain
unpersuasive of error. We note that any other arguments not specifically
addressed in detail herein have been thoroughly considered by the panel but
are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra and those well expressed
in the Examiner's Answer.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine that the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and that
6
Appeal2013-008283
Application 11/833,685
the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness is well-founded. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 13-21, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Imaoka and Toth.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11, 31, and
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toth and Mehta.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-21, 29, and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Imaoka and Toth.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7