Ex Parte Mairs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2018

13972417 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2018)

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.
13/972,417 08/21/2013 Susan M. Mairs 20424.0090USU1 3035
136306 7590 02/12/2018
IR HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
45 South Seventh Street
Suite 2700
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2018 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):
ptomail @hsml. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUSAN M. MAIRS, BRYAN GEORGE KINNEY,
KIMBERLY HAYMAN, MELISSA ROSE SCHUMANN,
RACHEL MICHAEL NILSSON, and JACOB LARSON
Appeal 2017-009822
Application 13/972,4171
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—5 and 7—11, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. Claim 6 is cancelled. (Amendment filed July 8,
2015). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is TRANE
INTERNATIONAL INC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-009822
Application 13/972,417
INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a mobile device with a
graphical user interface for remotely monitoring and/or operating a building
automation system. Spec. 11.
Claim 1 reads as follows, with the disputed limitations shown in
italics:
1. A mobile device for remote operation of a building automation
system, comprising:
a processor in communication with a network interface
and a touchscreen;
the processor executing instructions for a graphical user
interface and displaying the graphical user interface on the
touchscreen;
the network interface can receive data from the building
automation system in real time, the network interface can send
the data to the processor, and the processor can display the data
in a portion of the graphical user interface; and
the graphical user interface includes a screen and a
navigation bar, the navigation bar includes a plurality of icons,
each of the icons is associated with an interactive screen, wherein
a selection of one of the icons by touching the touchscreen is
detectable by the processor to display in the screen the interactive
screen associated with the one of the icons,
the graphical user interface is configured to receive user
input data via the touchscreen, relay the user input data to the
processor, the processor is configured to send the user input data
to the building automation system via a transmission from the
network interface,
wherein the user input data includes commentary
information that is stored at the building automation system so
that the commentary information can be accessed and viewed by
using another mobile device connected to the building
automation system,
the graphical user interface includes a text field for
displaying the commentary information, and a keyboardfieldfor
providing a human-computer keyboard interface.
2
Appeal 2017-009822
Application 13/972,417
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—5 and 7—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ray et al. (US 2011/0087988 Al;
published April 14, 2011) (“Ray”) and Meyer et al. (US H2176 H, published
Dec. 5, 2006) (“Meyer”). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3—11) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 12—14).
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following additional points.
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner found Ray teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except “wherein the user input data
includes commentary information that is stored at the building automation
system so that the commentary information can be accessed and viewed by
using another mobile device connected to the building automation system,”
for which the Examiner relied on Meyer. Final Act. 3—7. The Examiner
combined Meyer’s teaching of storing complaints and accessing them
through another device with Ray’s BMS system that teaches receiving,
storing and sharing user input in a HVAC or security system. Id. at 7;
Ans. 13—14. The Examiner cited Meyer to teach the stored data as
commentary data, in particular. Ans. 13—14.
3
Appeal 2017-009822
Application 13/972,417
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Ray fails to teach the
limitation “a keyboard field for providing a human-computer keyboard
interface,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 8. Appellants argue
Ray does not teach or suggest that signals input from the UI elements 426
are stored outside the Client Terminal 30. App. Br. 8—9. In particular,
Appellants argue “the command signals transmitted from the Client
Terminal 30 to one of the equipment is different from the signal from the UI
elements 426 made by the user.” Id. at 9. (Emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because the
Examiner found Ray’s UI element keyboard teaches or at least suggests a
“keyboard field.” Final Act. 6 (citing Ray 144); Ans. 12—13. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings because Ray’s processing circuit 402 includes
UI interface 418, which receives signals from UI elements, i.e., a keyboard.
Id. Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding in the
Answer that “one skilled in the art can construe the computer code
instructions [in Ray 144] to mean soft keys or [a] keyboard field for
providing a human-computer keyboard interface.” Ans. 13.
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding
that Ray teaches or suggests the disputed limitation “a keyboard field for
providing a human-computer keyboard interface.”
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred because Ray and Meyer
do not teach a mobile device that can store commentary information at a
building automation system so that the commentary information can be
accessed and viewed by another mobile device connected to the building
automation system, as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 9—10. Appellants argue
Ray’s device and user interface store signals input from the UI elements 426
4
Appeal 2017-009822
Application 13/972,417
at the local Client Terminal 30. See id. at 10. Appellants further argue the
Building Control System 22 taught in Meyer is not configured to receive
data from the client computers 26 and cannot store the occupant’s
complaints of comments. App. Br. 10—11, Reply Br. 1—3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because Appellants
attack the references individually (App. Br. 8—11, Reply Br. 1—4), even
though the Examiner relied on the combination of Ray and Meyer as
teaching or suggesting the disputed features. Final Act. 4—7, Ans. 12—14; In
re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“[T]he test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having
ordinary skill in the art.”).
The Examiner found Ray teaches the limitations of claim 1 with the
exception of the user input data including commentary information. Final
Act. 6—7; Ans. 13—14. The Examiner cited Meyer to teach the stored data
includes commentary data. Ans. 13—14. The Examiner combined Meyer’s
teaching of storing complaints and accessing them through another device
with Ray’s teaching of a BMS system that receives, stores, and shares user
input in a HVAC or security system. Ans. 13—14 (citing Meyer cols. 3:34—
45, 9:19-31, Ray 158).
Appellants have not persuasively addressed the combined teachings of
Ray and Meyer relied on by the Examiner and, thus, have not persuaded us
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ray and Meyer teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
Appellants next contend the Examiner relied on improper hindsight
reasoning in combining Ray and Meyer. App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 4.
5
Appeal 2017-009822
Application 13/972,417
We disagree. The Examiner has articulated (Final Act. 7) how the
claimed features are taught or suggested by the references’ teachings with a
rational underpinning to combine Ray’s teachings with those of Meyer. See
KSRInt'l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellants have not
identified any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only
from Appellants’ disclosure and was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary' skill in the art at the time of invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Nor have Appellants provided objective
evidence of secondary considerations, which “operates as a beneficial check
on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc.,
725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Ray and Meyer teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative independent claim 1. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2—5 and 7—11, for which Appellants make no
additional arguments. App. Br. 7; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5 and 7—11.
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(f).
AFFIRMED
6