Ex Parte Romanczyk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2015

11861370 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte
PIOTR ROMANCZYK, WILLIAM R. BLUM, and PHILLIP J. FERRO
____________

Appeal 2012-008083
Application 11/861,3701
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–3, 6–13, and 15. Claims 4, 5, and 14 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Honeywell International,
Inc. App. Br. 2.

Appeal 2012-008083
Application 11/861,370

2
Invention
The claimed invention relates to security systems and more
particularly to communicating with security systems over un-encrypted
communication links. Spec. para. 1.

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, with key limitations emphasized, is reproduced below and is
illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of remotely controlling a security panel of a
security alarm system over un-encrypted communication paths,
comprising:
a central security system service that provides communications
services to a plurality of security alarm systems installed in a
covered geographic area receiving a message from a user of one
of the plurality of security alarm systems in plain text over an
un-encrypted communication path;
the central security system service authenticating a source of
the message;
the central security system service correlating the plain text to
a security panel command of the one of the plurality of security
alarms systems;
the central security system service sending the security panel
command to the security panel installed at a premise of the one
of the plurality of security alarms systems;
the central security system service receiving a confirmation
message confirming execution of the security panel command at
the security panel;
the central security system service correlating the confirmation
message to a second plain text message;
the central security system service communicating the second
plain text message over the un-encrypted communication path;
Appeal 2012-008083
Application 11/861,370

3
the central security system service establishing a secure virtual
channel to the security panel, wherein the step of sending the
security panel command and the step of receiving the
confirmation message is performed via the secure virtual
channel; and
the central security system service enabling the user to
configure plain text to security panel command correlations.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims.
Hess US 2005/0030174 A1 Feb. 10, 2005
Wesby US 2005/0222933 A1 Oct. 6, 2005
Mazzarella US 2006/0156063 A1 July 13, 2006
Rejection
Claims 1–3, 6–13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hess, Mazzarella, and Wesby.

ISSUE
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the
combination of Hess, Mazzarella, and Wesby does not teach or
suggest a central security system service correlating a plain text
message to a security panel command of a one of a plurality of
security alarms systems; the central security system service
sending the security panel command to the security panel; the
central security system service receiving a confirmation
message confirming execution of the security panel command;
and the central security system service correlating the
Appeal 2012-008083
Application 11/861,370

4
confirmation message to a second plain text message as recited
in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Hess teaches or suggests a system and method for
transmitting alarm data including correlating plain text to a security panel
command (34, lines 6–8); sending the security panel command to a security
panel installed at a premise (34, lines 9–13); receiving a confirmation
message confirming execution of the security panel command at the security
panel (37, lines 1–7; 38, lines 1–4; 40, lines 9–10); and correlating the
confirmation message to a second plain text message (28, lines 12–16). Ans.
5.
The Examiner also finds Mazzarella teaches or suggests a system and
method for instant messaging transaction integration, including enabling an
end user to configure plain text to security panel command correlations (100,
lines 33–41). Ans. 6.
The Examiner further finds Wesby discloses a system and method for
monitoring and controlling wireless modules, including authenticating a
source of the message (113, lines 1–10). Ans. 7.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because none of the cited
references provide any teaching of a central security system service that
translates commands between SMS messages on an un-encrypted
communication path and a security panel on a secure virtual channel. App.
Br. 10. Appellants argue the communications interface identified in Hess is
located within the portable alarm system, not within the claimed central
security system service. App. Br. 9. We have considered all of Appellants’
arguments but they are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appeal 2012-008083
Application 11/861,370

5
The Examiner notes the central security system service is described in
the claims in terms of configuring a device to perform steps to control an
alarm system. Ans. 14. Therefore, the Examiner explains, the central
security system service of the claimed invention may be interpreted as
software that configures the method of controlling an alarm system instead
of as a separate device, as argued by Appellants. Ans. 15.
Claim 1 does not provide any express limitation regarding the location
of the recited central security system service. Rather, the Specification
explains the “[c]entral security system service 108, for instance, may be any
communications service that, for example, provides communications (wired
and/or wireless) and network services to security/alarm systems installed in
the covered geographic area.” Spec. para. 13 (emphasis added). The
Specification goes on to explain, “[t]the system and method of the present
disclosure may be implemented and run on a general-purpose computer or
computer system.” Spec. para. 22. The terms “computer system” and
“computer network” as used in the present application may include a variety
of combinations of fixed and/or portable computer hardware, software,
peripherals, and storage devices. Spec. para. 23. Given these statements in
the Specification, the Examiner’s interpretation of “central security system
service” as software that configures the method of controlling an alarm
system is reasonable.
Appellants also contend the Examiner failed to demonstrate the
proposed combination of references is proper. App. Br. 12. Appellants
argue each of the cited references is directed to solving a different specific
problem and none of the cited references is directed to the problem solved
by the claimed invention. App. Br. 13.
Appeal 2012-008083
Application 11/861,370

6
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether
the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The Examiner finds Hess discloses a method of controlling an alarm
system by transmitting data, Mazzarella discloses translating instant
messaging (i.e., plain text messages) into forms compatible with devices,
and Wesby discloses monitoring and controlling modules (i.e., alarm
systems). The Examiner therefore finds Hess, Mazzarella, and Wesby are
either in the field of the Appellants’ endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem of communicating alarm commands between a device
using plain text to control a remote module (i.e., an alarm system). Ans. 18.
We find the field of endeavor of the claimed invention to be electronic
communications with security systems. Mazzarella, for example, involves
electronic communications such as data and communications encryption
technologies to enable secure communications transmissions between a user
and a transaction integration system. Mazzarella para. 101. Wesby involves
remote asset management systems capable of exchanging control and
operational data for remotely monitoring and controlling the use of fixed or
movable assets such as fire and intruder alarm systems. Wesby paras. 1, 8.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hess, Mazzarella,
and Wesby are either in the field of the Appellants’ endeavor or reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Appeal 2012-008083
Application 11/861,370

7
We note, Appellants for the first time in the Reply Brief raise the
arguments, “Hess fails to disclose the security system establishing a secure
virtual channel to the security panel” and "the central security system
enabling the user to configure plain text to security panel command
correlation. . . . [I]s not taught, suggested or even hinted at within any of the
cited references.” Reply. Br. 5.
These arguments are not entitled to our consideration because they
were not initially presented in the opening brief and were not in response to
a new argument present by the Examiner. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion
Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument
raised for the first time in the reply brief that could have been raised in the
opening brief is waived); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473–
74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the
Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply
brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal).
However, even if timely presented, these arguments are not persuasive of
Examiner error.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we conclude the Examiner did not err in
finding the combination of Hess, Mazzarella, and Wesby teaches or suggests
the limitations discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1, along with independent claims
10 and 15 which have similar limitations, and their dependent claims 2, 3, 6–
9, and 11–13.

Appeal 2012-008083
Application 11/861,370

8
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 6–13, and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj