Ex Parte HOGG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

13182074 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/182,074 07 /13/2011
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
06/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DAVID WILLIAM BAIN HOGG
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.
H0030594/4874/l l 4246 5653
EXAMINER
BURGDORF, STEPHEN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID WILLIAM BAIN HOGG
Appeal2014-009531
Application 13/182,07 4
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009531
Application 13/182,074
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to an "installation support system [that]
includes a smart phone which executes a downloaded installation
application" that "[a Jn installer can [use to] create a visual map of a virtual
region, corresponding to a portion of a monitored space" where "[ o ]ne or
more units being installed can be associated with locations in the virtual
region." (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A system comprising:
at least one unit that monitors a selected condition including
at least one of movement detection, glass breakage detection,
smoke detection, fire detection or gas detection; and
a wireless communications device which has a user input
interface including a keypad, circuitry for storage of unit location
information and an installation support application, including
voice recognition software executing on the communications de-
vice, the communications device also includes circuitry to track
movement of the communications device through a region and to
create a virtual map of a building, the installation support appli-
cation records unit placement location and unit parameters dur-
ing installation of the at least one unit within the region, wherein
a portion of the region in the vicinity of the location of the unit
1 Appellant identifies Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. (See App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2014-009531
Application 13/182,074
is visually presented on a display device of the wireless commu-
nication device, an installer views the virtual map and via keypad
and audio input circuitry enters a location of the unit in the region
by annotating the map with audibly entered tags or keypad en-
tered tags and the installation support application automatically
records details of the installation including the placement loca-
tion and parameters of the at least one unit into a database of a
regional monitoring system that monitors events within the re-
gion via the at least one unit.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Griffiths US 2010/0145479 Al June 10, 2010
Sly et al. US 2011/0072034 Al Mar. 24, 2011
Rider et al. US 2011/0218730 Al Sept. 8, 2011
Moon et al. US 2011/0224564 Al Sept. 15, 2011
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Griffiths, Rider, and Sly. (See Final Act. 2-15.)
2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Griffiths, Rider, Sly, and Moon. (See Final Act. 15-17.)
3. Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rider, Griffiths, and Sly. (See Final Act. 17-22.)
3
Appeal2014-009531
Application 13/182,074
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues that the rejections were improper for the following
reasons:
1. With respect to claims 1-5 and 7-20, "Griffiths, Rider et al. and
Sly et al. and the combination of Griffiths, Rider et al. and Sly et al." fail to
disclose "a wireless communications device which has a user input interface
including a keypad, circuitry for storage of unit location information and an
installation support application, including voice recognition software
executing on the communications device, the communications device also
includes circuitry to track movement of the communications device through
a region and to create a virtual map of a building, the installation support
application records unit placement location and unit parameters during
installation of the at least one unit within the region, wherein a portion of the
region in the vicinity of the location of the unit is visually presented on a
display device of the wireless communication device, an installer views the
virtual map and via keypad and audio input circuitry enters a location of the
unit in the region by annotating the map with audibly entered tags or keypad
entered tags." (App. Br. 7-9.)
2. "In general, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established." (App. Br. 10-12.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5 and 7-15
Appellant's arguments are based on the characterization of Griffiths
as "merely directed to a sensor monitoring system" and "directed to a
4
Appeal2014-009531
Application 13/182,074
method of operating a wireless portable sensor monitoring system." (App.
Br. 7.) This view of Griffiths ignores the Examiner's detailed findings.
In particular, the Examiner found that Griffiths teaches not just "a
wireless portable sensor monitoring system" but, more specifically, one that
includes user devices, such as PDAs or telephones known to have input
interfaces and to execute user applications, where the user devices
communicate with a remote controller to manually register a sensor via a
configuration interface in which icons may be placed on a map. (See Final
Act. 3.) The Examiner further found that, although "Griffiths discloses that
sensor registration and map generation and annotation takes place on the
controller device by a user device through an exemplary web page interface,
rather than by an application resident on the user device itself," it "discloses
that other architectures may be used" and that "in accordance with well-
known principles of distributed computing it would have been obvious to an
artisan at the time of the invention that applications may operate, and data be
stored on either, or both devices." (See Final Act. 4.) We agree with the
Examiner and adopt these findings, which are not disputed.
The Examiner explained that "Griffiths does not disclose the use of
[ 1] voice recognition software on the user device, [2] specific annotation of
sensor locations on the map using a keypad and/or audible entry, or [3]
circuitry that tracks movement of the mobile device" (Ans. 4) and looked to
Rider and Sly for those features. Appellant's arguments that Rider is
"merely directed to the locating of data equipment within the data center and
then only taking a picture of a bar code and a location of the data
equipment," and that Sly is "merely directed to travel destinations" (App.
Br. 7), are again not responsive to the Examiner's specific findings.
5
Appeal2014-009531
Application 13/182,074
In particular, the Examiner found that Rider teaches cataloging
devices using a mobile device, "where the mobile device includes circuits
and software to determine its location [and] track movement of the user ...
where the mobile device and/or particular unit location may be displayed on
a map therefore storing the location at least for the purpose of display."
(Final Act. 5.) The Examiner further found that Sly teaches "cooperative
naming of locations presented on a map that may be displayed on a mobile
communications device," "that this mobile device may include a keyboard
(keypad) and a microphone (audio circuit) associated with a speech
recognition component," and that "a name (tag/location information) may be
entered by the user for a feature on the map, or the current mobile device
location (as may be detected by GPS)." (Final Act. 6.) We agree with the
Examiner and adopt these findings, which also are not disputed.
that
Based on the above specific factual findings, the Examiner concluded
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to use a mobile device such as a
smartphone, running one or more applications, to monitor
location and track a user within a region, building or facility, and
to automatically or manually enter information about an
equipment during installation, and store the information on the
mobile device and/or transmit the information along with
equipment location to a central monitoring server and database
as taught by Rider, and to enter information using a keyboard
and/or audible input associated with speech recognition software
as taught by Sly, in a wireless portable sensor system as taught
by Griffiths in order to maintain a record of the association of
each equipment with its assigned location during installation to
facilitate location for future service or maintenance.
(Final Act. 6.) We agree.
6
Appeal2014-009531
Application 13/182,074
Quoting In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992), Appellant
argues that "[ t ]here must be some reason, suggestion or motivation found in
the prior art whereby a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention
would make the combination." (App. Br. 10, emphasis added.) That is not
an accurate description of the law. Instead, although an obviousness
rejection must be based on "some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR
Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been well within
the abilities of the skilled artisan to modify Griffiths' teachings regarding a
map of sensors by using the known techniques of voice input, labeling, and
location tracking, and that such modifications would have been motivated by
a desire to conveniently create a record of sensor locations during
installation using these known techniques.
We accordingly sustain the rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-15.
Claim 6
As Appellant does not present any arguments regarding the rejection
of claim 6, we summarily that rejection.
Claims 16--20
We understand Appellant's argument for method claims 16-20 (App.
Br. 8-9) to mirror the argument for system claims 1-15 and sustain the
rejections for the same reasons. No other argument has been properly
7
Appeal2014-009531
Application 13/182,074
presented. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.").
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are 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).
AFFIRMED
8