Ex Parte Roosli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2017

13603328 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017)

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.
13/603,328 09/04/2012 Philipp Roosli H29939-1161.1669101 1616
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2017 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 PHILIPP ROOSLI, RYAN GARDNER,
and RAVI SAGAR
Appeal 2016-006980
Application 13/603,3281
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3—13, 16—22, and 24—30, which are all of the claims pending in the
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to wall-mounted mechanisms to facilitate
requests by guests of hotel rooms, including light switches and buttons for
“Do Not Disturb” (DND) and “Make-Up-Room” (MUR). Spec. 1—2.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 14, 15, and 23 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2016-006980
Application 13/603,328
1. A system for installation of an interface assembly, comprising:
a single gang electrical box, in a wall of a room, for an
electrical component; and
a room occupant interface assembly installed in the single
gang electrical box in lieu of an electrical component; and
wherein:
the interface assembly comprises:
an audio speaker;
a first switch mechanism for controlling a
load in the room, where the load in the room is
remote from the interface assembly;
a load actuator configured to control a line
voltage to the load in the room in response to
activation of the first switch mechanism; and
a second switch mechanism for sending a
make up room message or a do not disturb message.
Rejections3
Claims 1, 3—9, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Buckingham et al. (US 7,053,757 B2; May
30,2006). Final Act. 5-12.
Claims 10-13, 16, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Buckingham and Mohamed (US
2006/0049954 Al; Mar. 9, 2006).4 Final Act. 12-15.
Claims 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Buckingham, Mohamed, and Jones et al. (US
2007/0120978 Al; May 31, 2007).5 Final Act. 15-18.
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 10 and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. Advisory Act. 1 (mailed Oct. 20, 2015); Final Act. 2-A.
4 Appellants cancelled claims 14 and 15 in an Amendment After Final (Oct.
5, 2015), which the Examiner entered. Advisory Act. 1 (Oct. 20, 2015).
5 The Examiner mistakenly includes claims 25 and 27 in this stated rejection.
Final Act. 15. We consider this harmless error.
2
Appeal 2016-006980
Application 13/603,328
Claims 25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Buckingham and Jones. Final Act. 18—19.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding Buckingham renders
claim 1 obvious?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Buckingham teaches or
suggests “removing an electrical component from a single gang electrical
box located in a wall of a room,” as recited in claim 21?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3—9, and 30
Claim 1 recites “a room occupant interface assembly installed in the
single gang electrical box . . . wherein: the interface assembly comprises . . .
a first switch mechanism for controlling a load in the room . . . and a second
switch mechanism for sending a make up room message or a do not disturb
message.” The Specification explains the first switch controlling a load
could be, for example, a light switch. Spec. 6—7.
Buckingham teaches an “internal door plate 12 has a ‘Do Not Disturb’
(DND) button 30 and a ‘Make Up Room’ (MUR button) 32.” Buckingham
3:28—31, Fig. 2. Buckingham’s door plates “are sized to fit within the recess
for a standard light switch, allowing door plates 12 and 14 to each be
installed in a standard, single gang junction box or to be mounted in a
standard multi-gang junction box together with entry light or other
switches.” Id. at 7:56—61.
Appellants contend “although Buckingham does disclose placing door
plate 12 next to a separate light switch or other switch device in a multi-gang
box, there is no suggestion to place the door plate 12 and a switch into a
3
Appeal 2016-006980
Application 13/603,328
single interface in a single gang box.” App. Br. 10. However, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding claim 1 was obvious.
We agree with the Examiner that Buckingham teaches its interface
assembly can be equipped with “a 3-wire power supply, which is commonly
used in centralized, room control systems” (Buckingham 5:1—4; Ans. 4—5); a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “the benefit of
consolidating electric switches in one location and reducing the cost of
installation” (Ans. 5—6); and “to make an assembly smaller requires only
routine skill in the art.” Ans. 6. Appellants have not persuaded us that
consolidating Buckingham’s multi-gang box (i.e., with a light switch
separate from the DND/MUR door plate) would yield anything more than
the predictable result of a centralized room control system with the same
buttons having the same functions consolidated into a single gang box (e.g.,
a single door plate with a DND button, a MUR button, and a light switch).
See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 3—9 and 30, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 9, 11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 21, 22, 24, 26, and 28
Claim 21 recites “removing an electrical component from a single
gang electrical box located in a wall of a room” and “replacing the removed
electrical component” with an interface component commensurate with the
component discussed for claim 1 above.
In addition to the arguments for claim 1 which are not persuasive for
the reasons above, Appellants further contend that Buckingham fails to
disclose removing any component and that “light switches and outlets are
4
Appeal 2016-006980
Application 13/603,328
commonly installed in single gang electrical boxes without first removing a
single gang electrical component from the box.” App. Br. 12.
However, we agree with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have recognized that there are only two alternatives: either the
junction box is empty, as when new construction is performed;
or the junction box houses a pre-existing electrical assembly, as
when the interface assembly is to be installed in a pre-existing
building structure.
Ans. 11. The structure and function of Buckingham’s interface component
is the same regardless of whether the device is placed in new construction or
a previously used box, so there is no unexpected result from replacing a
component in a retrofitted box rather than using a new box in new
construction. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Moreover, we agree with the
Examiner that Buckingham’s disclosure of reducing costs by installing the
door plates in standard junction boxes at least suggests the possibility of
retrofitting by replacing a component in an existing box. Ans. 9—10;
Buckingham 7:62—65; see also Buckingham 7:54—56 (“Because system 10
can be expanded, the system will not have to be discarded with future
expandability, creating a cost savings.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, and
claims 22, 24, 26, and 28, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 12—13; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 10—13, 16—20, 25, 27, and29
With respect to claim 10, Appellants contend Mohamed “does not
appear to cure the deficiencies of Buckingham.” App. Br. 14. However, we
do not agree there are deficiencies with Buckingham for the reasons
discussed above.
5
Appeal 2016-006980
Application 13/603,328
Appellants further contend “there does not appear to be any rationale
in the art to modify the cited references.” App. Br. 15. The Examiner has
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning; however, Appellants
have not explained their argument nor addressed the rationales set forth by
the Examiner. Ans. 12; see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”).
Appellants make similar arguments for the combinations with Jones
for claims 17—20, 25, and 27, and we are not persuaded for the same reasons.
App. Br. 15—16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10;
dependent claims 11—13, 16—20, 25, 27, and 29, which Appellants argue are
patentable for the same reasons as claim 10; claims 17—20; and claims 25
and 27. See App. Br. 15-16; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 3—13, 16—22, and 24—30.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6