Ex Parte Huynh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

13796308 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/796,308 03/12/2013 Cuong Huynh H0034165-1161.1655101 2706
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
TERRELL, EMILY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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 @ honey well, 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 CUONG HUYNH and STUART DONALDSON
Appeal 2016-004690
Application 13/796,3081
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—22. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2016-004690
Application 13/796,308
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Azieres et al. (US 6,646,564 Bl, published Nov. 11,
2003). Final Act. 3.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to “monitoring systems,” and
more particularly to “monitoring building automation systems.” Spec. 1.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a mechanism; and independent claims 11
and 20 are directed to methods. App. Br. 13, 15, 18.
Claim 1 recites
1. A mechanism for monitoring a building automation
system, comprising:
an alarm/event triggering conditions configuration
component;
system configuration database component;
an alarm/event system context data notification
configuration component integrated with the alarm/event
triggering conditions configuration component and system
configuration database component to support configuration for
data notification;
a system configuration database that facilitates generating
a default or a user-defined context data notification based on each
alarm/event triggering condition configuration, wherein the
context data notification includes content indicating a direct
cause of the triggered alarm/event and data content indirectly
related to the direct cause of the triggered alarm/event;
an alarm event monitoring component integrated with the
alarm/event triggering conditions configuration component for
configuration of alarms/events to monitor; and
2
Appeal 2016-004690
Application 13/796,308
a real-time data component and a history data component,
providing data for monitoring alarm/event conditions.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, We provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1—22
Appellants contend Azieres does not teach or suggest “generating a
default or a user-defined context data notification based on each alarm/event
triggering condition configuration, wherein the context data notification
includes content indicating a direct cause of the triggered alarm/event and
data content indirectly related to the direct cause of the triggered
alarm/event,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 9-10 (emphasis added).
Specifically, Appellants argue that Azieres does not teach or suggest a
“notification of an alarm,” and “what data/information in the notification is
considered to be data/information indirectly related to a direct cause of a
triggered alarm.” Reply. Br. 3. The Examiner finds Azieres’s use of sensor
data and historical data to determine an alarm event, and providing an alarm
with data content and historical data, teaches an alarm notification providing
3
Appeal 2016-004690
Application 13/796,308
data indirectly related to the cause of an alarm. See Ans. 5, citing Azieres
col. 5,1. 65 — col. 6,1. 32. We agree with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner, Azieres discloses:
One or more personal computers 112 are available at the
equipment 100 site for receiving data transmitted from the
programmable logic controller 106 in addition to receiving
alarm signals from the controller 106. . . . The display of the
personal computer 112 can be programmed to constantly display
selectable readings from the sensors 102, thereby providing a
constant, real-time display of the operating conditions and
performance of the equipment 100. . . . Upon detecting an out-
of-range condition, the personal computer 112 can display an
error message and/or generate an audible alarm signal. For
example, in addition to activating the alarm 108, the personal
computer 112 can display on its graphical user interface an
appropriate message, such as a particular sensor reading being
worse than any corresponding reading on similar equipment in
the enterprise or instructions to service personal for correcting
the out-of-range condition.
[T]he personal computer 112 is envisioned to be located in the
proximity of the equipment 100 to permit local equipment
operators and maintenance personal immediate and efficient
access to real-time and historical data regarding the operating
conditions and environment of the equipment 100 and means to
conveniently adjust the operating controls 104 of the equipment
100.
Azieres col. 5,1. 65 — col. 6,1. 1; col. 6,11. 4—8; col. 6,11. 24—32; col. 6,11.
49-55 (emphases added). In other words, Azieres describes an alarm or
error message in response to detection of an out-of-range condition, and the
alarm or message indicates the out-of-range condition and includes the
display of an appropriate message that can include at least sensor readings,
and the system provides real-time and historical data. As such, Azieres
teaches or suggests a notification in response to an alarm or event triggering
4
Appeal 2016-004690
Application 13/796,308
condition, the notification indicating that the condition has been triggered,
and the notification includes appropriate data with the capability to provide
examples such as sensor data directly related to the alarm or event condition
and historical data indirectly related to the alarm or event condition.
Appellants quote Column 6, Lines 24—32 of Aziere, and allege that
the quoted section of Aziere (which teaches triggering an alarm and also
displaying an appropriate message, such as a condition of a sensor relative to
other sensors) does not teach generating, in response to an alarm, a
notification with data content that is indirectly related to the cause of the
alarm or to historical data. Reply Br. 3. However, Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence that “generating a default or a user-defined
context data notification based on each alarm/event triggering condition
configuration,” as recited by claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by
Azieres’s alarm or error message in response to detection of an out-of-range
condition; and Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that
“wherein the context data notification includes content indicating a direct
cause of the triggered alarm/event and data content indirectly related to the
direct cause of the triggered alarm/event,” as recited by claim 1, is not taught
or otherwise suggested by Azieres’s alarm or error message indicating the
out-of-range condition and including appropriate messages with data such as
sensor data and historical data.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as
well as the rejection of commensurate independent claims 11 and 20, as well
as dependent claims 2—10, 12—19, 21, and 22, not separately argued. See
App. Br. 11.
5
Appeal 2016-004690
Application 13/796,308
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—22 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).
AFFIRMED
6