Ex Parte Shima et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2016

12448000 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/448,000 0413012009
127226 7590 02/01/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kiyoshi Shima
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.
2257-0324PUS1 8559
EXAMINER
STEVENS, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIYOSHI SHIMA and HISASHI SUMIDA
Appeal2014-000573
Application 12/448,000
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 8-23, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. Claims 1-7 are canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-000573
Application 12/448,000
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention generally relates to an air conditioning system
comprising a plurality of air conditioners and a central controller. Spec.
,-r 1.2
Claim 8 is representative and reads as follows:
8. An air conditioning system, comprising:
a plurality of air conditioners each having a display part for
switching plural kinds of display format specifications to
display; and
a central controller for centrally controlling switching of
individual of said plural kinds of said display format
specifications for said display part of each of said air conditioners
without operating said display part of each of said air
conditioners.
References
Kenet us 5,165,465 Nov. 24, 1992
Biskup US 6,700,224 B2 Mar. 2, 2004
Kuroda US 2004/0255038 Al Dec. 16, 2004
Wimsatt US 7,047,092 B2 May 16, 2006
Carlson US 2007/0226019 Al Sep.27,2007
Shah US 7,320,110 B2 Jan. 15,2008
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Oct. 24, 2012 ("Final
Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Apr. 15, 2013 ("App. Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed July 29, 2013 ("Ans."), Appellants' Reply Brief
filed Sep. 30, 2013 ("Reply. Br."), and the original Specification filed Apr.
30, 2009 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-000573
Application 12/448,000
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlson, Kenet, and Kuroda.
Claims 9-11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Carlson, Kenet, Kuroda, and Biskup.
Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlson, Kenet, Kuroda, and Wimsatt.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlson, Kenet, Kuroda, and Shah.
Claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carlson, Kenet, Kuroda, Biskup, and Shah.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3-8) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3-
8) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments.
Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 3-13) and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-5), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific arguments as
presented in the Briefs.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue what they contend each of
Carlson, Kenet, and Kuroda describes. See App. Br. 4---6. For example,
Appellants argue "Carlson describes a method for configuring a phone
switch 416 and a media server 418, for a hotel room based on a preferred
3
Appeal2014-000573
Application 12/448,000
language of a hotel guest," "Kenet describes centrally setting temperatures
of temperature controllers of air conditioners in rooms," and "Kuroda
describes a server 10 connecting to appliances such as TV 20a and an air
conditioner 20e in a network." Id. Appellants also argue "none of the
above-mentioned references disclose a plurality of air conditioners each
having a display part for switching plural kinds of display format
specifications, nor are they concerned with switching the display format
specifications for display parts of air conditioners via a central controller
without the display parts being operated as recited in claim 8." See App. Br.
5-6. These arguments are not persuasive because they attack the references
individually and fail to address the combination of Carlson, Kenet, and
Kuroda, which is relied on by the Examiner in rejecting the claims. See In
re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.").
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Carlson teaches a method in which
a hotel guests' native language is integrated into various hotel room
electronic devices, and once the media server 418 receives a guest's
language preference, the media server configures itself to supply language
dependent features, such as movies and television programming, to the
guest's room in the guest's preferred language. Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Carlson, Fig. 4, i-f 4 7). Carlson also teaches that the devices in a guest room
may receive the guest's language preference and set each device's graphical
user interface to use the guest's language. See Carlson i-f 50. The Examiner
also finds, and we agree, Kenet teaches a room monitoring and control
4
Appeal2014-000573
Application 12/448,000
system for rooms with air conditioners inside buildings, hotels, and
apartments which continually receives and updates a variety of different
information from each room and reports it to a central computer, which can
remotely control or set the temperature in a room if desired. Final Act. 5---6
(citing Kenet 2:9--18, 3:21-32). The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
Kuroda teaches a control system which runs on a network and which
connects to and manages various household appliances, including air
conditioners. Final Act. 6 (citing Kuroda i-f 33).
Specifically, we note that each reference cited by the Examiner must
be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with
the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner has set forth what each reference
teaches or suggests and has provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to
combine the teachings or suggestions of the references to produce the
subject matter of claim 8. Final Act. 3---6; see KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For example, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Carlson by including the plurality of air conditioners as taught by Kenet
because controlling or setting the temperature in a room with a heating and
cooling system having a temperature controller as taught by Kenet would
provide an added feature to the central monitoring of Carlson. See Final
Act. 5. Furthermore, in view of the teaching of Carlson that the central
control system can be used to change the format of the displays of the
electronic devices in hotel rooms, we find it would have been obvious for a
person of ordinary skill in the art to change the format of the displays of the
5
Appeal2014-000573
Application 12/448,000
plurality of air conditioners of Kenet without operating the display of each
air conditioner, as specified in claim 8. Appellants have not presented
persuasive evidence or argument to show error in the Examiner's conclusion
of obviousness. In particular, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
(see Reply Br. 5---6) that, at most, "Carlson describes achieving an advantage
that is, in a generalized form, similar to the advantage achieved by the
claimed invention, but is completely unrelated to the [claimed] feature of
'without operating said display part of each of said air conditioners"'
because this argument focuses on Carlson individually, rather than the
combined teachings of Carlson, Kenet, and Kuroda, on which the
Examiner's obviousness rejection is based.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art to teach or suggest the disputed limitations
of claim 8, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion
of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
8. For the reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 9--23, which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 7-9;
Reply Br. 7-8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2014-000573
Application 12/448,000
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
Klh
7