Ex Parte Piel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

13216286 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/216,286 08/24/2011
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
06/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin G. Piel
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.
H0030469/4874/l l 4254 3827
EXAMINER
DARAMOLA, ISRAEL 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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 KEVIN G. PIEL, RAYMOND J. JORDAN, RICHARD J. LAUBE,
MICHAEL GARA VUSO, BERTRAND JEAN MICHEL DEBEVER, and
BARRY S. MASEL
Appeal2014-010014
Application 13/216,286
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-16, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Claim 6 has been cancelled. App. Br. 14. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-010014
Application 13/216,286
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a system and method for wireless
enrollment using a visual status indicator. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a unit having
a housing with an exterior peripheral surface;
at least one of an input device, or a condition sensor,
carried by the housing;
control circuits coupled to the input device or the
sensor and carried by the housing;
a communications interface carried by the housing,
coupled to the control circuits; and
a light emitting output device coupled to the control
circuits and carried by the housing,
where the light emitting device emits at least first and
second viewable output indicia,
where the first viewable output indicium is indicative of
the unit being successfully enrolled \'l1ith and communicating
with a displaced monitoring control element in response to a
communication received from the displaced monitoring control
element via the interface,
where the second viewable output indicium is indicative
of a different condition, and
where the indicia are directed away from the external
peripheral surface.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Quigley
Gottlieb
US 2003/0128114 Al
US 2003/0132851 Al
2
July 10, 2003
July 17, 2003
Appeal2014-010014
Application 13/216,286
Kogan
Rezvani
US 2008/0094204 Al
US 2011/0050410 Al
REJECTIONS
Apr. 24, 2008
Mar. 3, 2011
Claims 1-5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kogan in view of Quigley. Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kogan in view of Quigley and Gottlieb. Final Act. 5---6.
Claims 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quigley and Rezvani. Final Act. 6-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree
\vith 1A .. ppellants' arguments regarding the pending claims.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9
Appellants argue neither Kogan nor Quigley teach that "the light
emitting device emits at least first and second viewable output indicia" with
the first indicia indicating "the unit being successfully enrolled with and
communicating with a displaced monitoring control element ... [and] the
second viewable output indicium is indicative of a different condition" as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3. More specifically, Appellants
argue Kogan does not teach "any indication by the sensor 16 of enrollment
of the security sensor 16 with any other device." App. Br. 6-7. Appellants
3
Appeal2014-010014
Application 13/216,286
also argue Quigley does not teach any indication from "sensors 14-25 of
which sensor has registered with the command console 10." App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds Kogan teaches an LED in a housing that indicates
at least two different output indicia. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner further
finds Quigley teaches having a green output indicia to indicate the unit is
successfully enrolled with and communicating with a monitoring control
element and a red output indicia when a different event happens. Final Act.
3. The Examiner also finds the combination of the two references teach the
disputed claim limitation:
Since Kogan is capable of having an LED attached to its various
devices, adapting Quigley's multiple color status indicators
would allow for Kogan's alarm to transmit or receive proper
status notification based on a remote server and an emergency
event taking place, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of invention to adapt Quigley's variation of
LEDs into Kogan's apparatus in order for the sensor unit to
notify its status to a user.
Id.; see also Ans. 8.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants' arguments focus on the references
individually and not the combined teaching of the references, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
4
Appeal2014-010014
Application 13/216,286
Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions. Kogan teaches a device with an LED "that may light up or
flash to indicate to the installer that the wireless device is transmitting."
Kogan i-f 46. Quigley teaches an LED with a green output when the device is
operating normally and red output when a different event, such as the battery
being low, occurs. Quigley i-f 31. The combination of the teachings of the
two references renders the disputed claim limitation obvious.
Appellants also argue because none of the cited references "recognize
the problem solved by the claimed invention" the Examiner failed to make a
prima facie case of obviousness. App. Br. 11. According to Appellants,
without recognizing the problem, "there would be no reason to combine the
cited references." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred. It is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that
disclosed in Appellants' Specification in order to support the conclusion that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 419 (2007) ("[N]either the particular motivation nor the avowed
purpose of the ... [Appellants] controls" in an obviousness analysis.).
The Examiner finds a motivation for combining the references (Final
Act. 3; Ans. 8) and that finding provides a "rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 2-5 and 7-9, which are not separately argued.
5
Appeal2014-010014
Application 13/216,286
Claims J{}-16
Appellants argue neither Kogan nor Rezvani teach the "responsive to
determining" step recited in claim 10. App. Br. 7-8. According to
Appellants, Quigley teaches a command console that flashes to indicate a
sensor is being registered. App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue that
although Rezvani is directed to manipulating a virtual console, because it "is
controlled by a user, it is not used 'to visually indicate the successful
enrollment and communication'" as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 8.
Appellants' discussion of Rezvani is directed to the teachings of paragraph
53. App. Br. 7-8.
The Examiner finds Quigley teaches all of the limitations of the
responsive to determining step except for transmitting a message used to
visually indicate the successful enrollment and communication. Final Act.
6. The Examiner further finds Rezvani teaches transmitting a message to a
unit "to visually indicate the successful enrollment and communication."
Final Act. 7 (citing Rezvani i-fi-153, 63); see also Ans. 8 (citing Rezvani
Abst.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred. First, Appellants' arguments are directed to the references
individually and not the combined teachings. Second, the arguments do not
address the reasoning relied on by the Examiner (Final Act. 7 (citing
Rezvani i163), Ans. 8 (citing Rezvani Abst.)) and, thus, does not adequately
address the rejection on appeal. Instead, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's finding that the combination of Quigley and Rezvani, as applied
by the Examiner, teaches the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 8.
6
Appeal2014-010014
Application 13/216,286
As with claim 1, Appellants also argue the Examiner failed to make a
prima facie case of obviousness because the prior art does not suggest the
problem solved in the Specification and by the appealed claims. App. Br.
11. For the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, along
with the rejections of claims 11-16, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-16.
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
7