Ex Parte Pildner

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 5, 2014

11521707 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2014)

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.
11/521,707 09/15/2006 Reinhart Pildner F-TP-00075.1
(336-2070US)
1765
71543 7590 08/05/2014
GERALD M. BLUHM
SENIOR PATENT AND TRADEMARK COUNSEL
TYCO FIRE PROTECTION
TYCO LAW DEPARTMENT 50 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
WESTMINSTER, MA 01441
EXAMINER
JAMAL, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte REINHART PILDNER1
__________

Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and MELANIE L.
McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
telephone line communication interface module and to a security system
comprising such a module. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-20 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 5). Claims 1, 2, 4,
and 5 are representative and read as follows:

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Tyco Safety Products
Canada Ltd. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707

2
1. A telephone line communication interface (TLCI) module
configured to interface a security panel with a phone line of a phone
network, the TLCI module comprising:
a receive opto-coupler having a receive input side and a receive output
side, the receive input side including a receive input line configured to
receive a signal on the phone line from the phone network, the receive
output side including a receive output line configured to convey the signal to
a security panel;
a transmit opto-coupler having a transmit input side and a transmit
output side, the transmit input side having a transmit input line configured to
receive transmit signals from the security panel, the transmit output side
having a transmit output line configured to convey the transmit signal to the
phone line of the phone network, the transmit output side being joined in
parallel with the receive input side of the receive opto-coupler; and
a hook control opto-coupler having a hook input side and a hook
output side, the hook input side having a hook control line configured to
receive a hook signal from the security panel, the hook output side having a
hook input line and a hook output line, the hook output line activating a
hook switch to convey the hook signal to the phone line of the phone
network, the hook output side being joined serially with the receive input
side of the receive opto-coupler.
2. The TLCI module of claim 1, further comprising an impedance
matching network being interconnected with the receive input side of the
receive opto-coupler and the transmit output side of the transmit opto-
coupler, the impedance matching network configured to provide impedance
matching with the phone network.
4. The TLCI module of claim 1, further comprising an impedance
matching network comprising at least one resistor and one capacitor
interconnected with one another, the impedance matching network being
interconnected with the receive input side of the receive opto-coupler and
the transmit output side of the transmit opto-coupler, the impedance
matching network configured to provide impedance matching with the
phone network.
5. The TLCI module of claim 1, the hook signal further comprising
signals indicating on-hook and off-hook conditions, the TLCI module
further comprising a high impedance DC load joined with the receive opto-
Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707

3
coupler and the hook control opto-coupler, the high impedance DC load
being configured to draw a level of current indicating to the phone network
when the hook signal is in the off-hook condition.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Pildner (US 6,226,357 B1, May 1, 2001) in view of Norsworthy et al.
(US 6,192,125 B1, Feb. 20, 2001) (Ans. 3).
The Examiner relies on Pildner for disclosing “a control panel 300 for
monitoring and communicating alarm conditions to a security monitoring
station 310 via a set of components configured to isolate a
microprocessor 420 of panel 300 to telephone line 302” (id. at 4). The
Examiner finds:
The interface components include, inter alia, a receive
optocoupler 416, a transmit optocoupler 418 and a hook
switch 15. . . . The optocouplers are wired in series.
Microprocessor 420 issues both signals and off-hook
commands to telephone line 302 using transmit
optocoupler 418. In response to off-hook commands, transmit
optocoupler 418 causes the transistor portion of the optocoupler
to conduct current passing through the diode of receive
optocoupler 416. This current is routed through resistor 30 to
the base of hook switch 15, causing hook switch 15 to close a
loop with the telephone line.
(Id. at 5.)
The Examiner relies on Norsworthy for disclosing “a system 10 for
isolating a telephone line from a transceiver, such as a modem, while
maintaining linearity between the line and the transceiver without
complicated feedback circuits” (id.). The Examiner finds that “[s]ystem 10
achieves this result using parallel-connected receive and transmit
optocouplers 11, 12 selected to have controller current transfer ratios” (id.).
Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707

4
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to modify Pildner’s control panel 300 to “separat[e]
the functions of signal transmission and hook control, providing signal
transmission with an optocoupler in parallel with receive optocoupler 416
and control of hook switch 15 with optocoupler 418” (id. at 6). In particular,
the Examiner concludes:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
recognized that Pildner and Norsworthy disclose similar
systems for isolating a transceiver from a telephone line.
Accordingly, one would have just as reasonably found the serial
and parallel arrangements of optocouplers to be suitable
alternatives in such systems. Based on these findings, one of
ordinary skill would have found obvious substituting the
parallel-coupled optocouplers of Norsworthy with the serial-
coupled optocouplers of Pildner. One would have further
found obvious such a substitution based on the suggestion of
Norsworthy that the parallel-coupled optocouplers can
maximize linearity.
(Id. at 6.) In addition, the Examiner concludes:
Since Norsworthy does not disclose a hook switch one would
have had to make a choice concerning how to implement the
hook switch of Pildner after substitution of the serial-coupled
optocouplers with the parallel-coupled optocouplers. . . . [T]wo
solutions to the hook switch question readily appear:
(1) maintain the union between the transmit and hook control
functions, or (2) leave the hook control in place while adding an
extra optocoupler to implement transmit control in parallel with
receive optocoupler 416. Of the two solutions, the latter
appears to be simplest, and accordingly most likely in line with
the skill of one of ordinary skill. In particular, the latter
solution merely requires adding a transmit optocoupler, and
appropriate biasing circuitry as disclosed by Norsworthy, in
parallel with the already existing structure of Pildner. The
former solution, however, would require elimination of
Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707

5
optocoupler 418 as well as the aforementioned addition of an
optocoupler. The latter solution also commends itself to being
the most obvious solution as optocoupler 418 has the further
function of providing a TLM signal that is monitored in a loop
configuration with receive optocoupler 416. . . . Thus, one of
ordinary skill would have found obvious leaving transmit
optocoupler 418 in place to provide hook control and TLM loop
monitoring.
(Id. at 7-8.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s assertion “that it would be
obvious to substitute the parallel-coupled optocouplers of Norsworthy with
the serial-coupled optocouplers of Pildner to ‘maximize linearity’” (App.
Br. 17). However, regardless of whether parallel-optocouplers would
maximize linearity, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have “found the serial and parallel arrangements of
optocouplers to be suitable alternatives in such systems” (Ans. 6). “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appellant also argues that, “assuming arguendo that Pildner was
modified to include a transmit optocoupler connected in [parallel] with a
receive optocoupler, the device taught by Pildner would fail to perform its
intended function” (App. Br. 19). Specifically, Appellant argues:
[C]onnecting the transmit optocoupler in series with the receive
optocoupler enables the transmit optocoupler to bias the receive
optocoupler. However, connecting the transmit optocoupler in
parallel with the receive optocoupler, as suggested in the Office
Action, would prohibit the transmit optocoupler of Pildner from
Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707

6
providing a biasing current to the receive optocoupler. As a
result, the device taught by Pildner would not be able to
determine whether the telephone line is functioning properly by
continuously monitoring the integrity of the telephone line.
(Id.) We are not persuaded.
Pildner’s transmit optocoupler has more than one function. In
addition to providing the outgoing signal, it provides (a) a hook signal and
(b) a telephone line monitoring (TLM) pulse (Pildner, Fig. 2A, col. 5, ll. 10-
55, & col. 7, ll. 9-65). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
prima facie obvious to divide these functions among different optocouplers
(Ans. 6).
In combining the references, the Examiner proposes to leave
optocoupler 418 in place (that is, in series with the receive optocoupler) so
that it can be used to provide the hook signal and the TLM pulse, while
adding another optocoupler in parallel with the receive optocoupler to
provide the outgoing signal (Ans. 7-8 & 23). Thus, we do not agree with
Appellant that the resulting device “would not be able to determine whether
the telephone line is functioning properly by continuously monitoring the
integrity of the telephone line” (App. Br. 19).
Moreover, Pildner discloses that telephone line monitoring is “a
preferred aspect of the invention” (Pildner, col. 2, ll. 40-42). Thus, even if
the combination deleted this function, we do not agree that the device
“would fail to perform its intended function” (App. Br. 19).
In addition, Appellant “submits that the Office Action is
impermissibly using the Appellant’s own disclosure as a blueprint to arrive
Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707

7
at the claimed invention, as evidenced by several signs” (id. at 20). In
particular, Appellant argues:
First, if one of skill in the art were to rearrange the
optocouplers in Pildner so that they were connected in parallel
as shown in Norsworthy, then such a person of ordinary skill
would not think to add a hook control optocoupler to such a
circuit because Norsworthy provides no teaching that a hook
control optocoupler and/or a hook switch are required in an
electrical isolation device having transmit and receive
optocouplers connected in parallel.
Second, because neither Pildner nor Norsworthy describe
a hook control optocoupler that is utilized with parallel
arranged optocouplers to operate a hook switch, the only
suggestion for modifying Pildner to include the additional hook
control optocoupler to operate the hook switch must have come
from the Appellant’s own disclosure.
(Id.) We are not persuaded.
Norsworthy discloses a system “of providing electrical isolation
between a telephone line and a connected device, such as a computer”
(Norsworthy, Abstract). It is undisputed that Norsworthy’s system
“achieves this result using parallel-connected receive and transmit
optocouplers 11, 12 selected to have controller current transfer ratios”
(Ans. 5).
In the context of a security system, Pildner discloses the inclusion of a
hook signal activating a hook switch, as well as a TLM pulse (Pildner,
col. 5, ll. 10-55, & col. 7, ll. 9-65). Pildner discloses that the hook signal can
be used to seize the telephone line and that the TLM pulse can be used to
monitor whether the phone line is working properly (id.). Based on the
Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707

8
disclosures in Pildner, we conclude that it would have been obvious to
include these functions in a parallel circuit, as described in Norsworthy.
Pildner discloses including both of these functions with an
optocoupler that is in series with the receive optocoupler (Pildner, col. 5,
ll. 10-55, & col. 7, ll. 9-65) and, in fact, Appellant argues that the TLM
function would not even work using an optocoupler that is in parallel with
the receive optocoupler (App. Br. 19). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to include these functions using an
optocoupler that is in series with the receive optocoupler, as described in
Pildner (Ans. 7-8 & 24).
Appellant additionally argues “that Pildner describes a current source
not an impedance matching network as recited in Claim 2” (App. Br. 22).
The Examiner provides a response to Appellant’s argument (Ans. 26-27).
Appellant has not adequately explained why the Examiner’s position is
incorrect.
With regard to claim 4, Appellant additionally argues that the
Examiner “fails to address the recitations regarding [the] impedance
matching network including at least one resistor and one capacitor (App.
Br. 23). However, in discussing the rejection of claim 2, the Examiner
clearly identifies “the capacitor and resistor just to the right of the AC
current arrow in FIG.2A” as providing impedance matching (Ans. 26).
Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that the Examiner fails to
address this recitation.
With regard to claim 5, “Appellant submits that the transistor 25 does
not draw a level of current indicating to the phone network when the hook
Appeal 2012-003525
Application 11/521,707

9
signal is in the off-hook condition” (App. Br. 24). In response, the Examiner
finds:
[T]he description of transistor 25 in Pildner identifies a degree
of cooperation between transistor 25 and transistor 15 (i.e.,
hook switch 15) in the active state. Specifically, when hook
switch 15 is closed/active, current flows through transistor 25 to
provide predefined voltage-current characteristics indicative of
an active status. Pildner at col. 7 ll. 66-67, col. 8 ll. 1-7. On
the other hand, when hook switch 15 is open/inactive, no
current can flow because the path from transistor 25 to the
phone line is interrupted. See id. at FIG.3D.
(Ans. 28.) Appellant has not adequately explained why the Examiner’s
position is in error.
CONCLUSION
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that claims 1, 2, 4,
and 5 would have been obvious. We therefore affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. Claims 3 and 6-20 have not been argued
separately and therefore fall with claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

lp