Ex Parte Sloo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201814979174 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/979,174 12/22/2015 125802 7590 05/29/2018 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Google LLC - Nest Labs, Inc. Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Sloo 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. 094021-0968049 3362 EXAMINER TANG,SONM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2018 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com googlepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID SLOO, NICHOLAS WEBB, YOKY MATSUOKA, ANTHONY MICHAEL FADELL, and MATTHEW LEE ROGERS 1 Appeal 2017-011255 Application 14/979, 17 4 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Google Inc. Appeal 2017-011255 Application 14/979, 17 4 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 2-21. Appellants have cancelled claim 1. App. Br. 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Representative Claim Representative claim 12 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 12. A hazard detector, comprising: [A.] a hazard sensor; and [B.] a processing system, comprising one or more processors, in operative communication with the hazard sensor, the processing system configured to: [ i.] access stored information to identify a first pre-alarm criteria based upon a designation of a particular location, wherein: [a.] a user has selected a particular location from a plurality of predefined locations for the hazard detector within a residence using a mobile device; [b.] each location of the plurality of predefined locations is linked with a pre-alarm criteria; and [ c.] the first pre-alarm criteria is distinct from a fixed emergency alarm criteria; [ii.] monitor for a hazard according to the first pre-alarm criteria and the fixed emergency alarm criteria; and [iii.] output a message indicating that the first pre-alarm criteria has been reached by an amount of hazard detected by the hazard sensor. 2 Appeal 2017-011255 Application 14/979, 17 4 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 2-13, 15-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of: Handley et al. (US 6,215,405 B 1; April 10, 2001 ), Morris (US 6,144,310; Nov. 7, 2000), and Cool et al. (US 2007/0241866 Al; Oct. 18, 2007). 2 The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable the combination of Handley, Morris, Cool, and Wedig et al. (US 2011/0241877 Al; Oct. 6, 2011). 3 Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 12 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. 2 We select claim 12 as representative. Appellants do not argue separate patentability for claims 2-11, 13, 15-19, and 21. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss claims 2-11, 13, 15-19, and 21 further herein. 3 Appellants do not argue separate patentability for claims 14 and 20. Thus, the rejections of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 12. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss these claims further herein. 3 Appeal 2017-011255 Application 14/979, 17 4 A Appellants raise the following arguments in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Handley is cited for disclosing that "the temperature thresholds of the alarm system are fully programmable and can be easily adjusted based upon the requirements of the systems and the location being monitored." Handley, col. 5, 11. 64-67, emphasis added. However, Handley is merely implying that a user can set the threshold however he wishes for a particular location. Handley is merely implying that a user can set the threshold however he wishes for a particular location. At no point is the threshold set based on the definition of the location selected. Handley at no point discloses a relationship between locations and threshold values, whether locally at the device or remotely at a server, which would allow such a threshold value to be obtained based on the designated location. To this effect, Handley does not even consider that a user can input a location. App. Br. 5. Regardless of the location selected in Morris, a threshold or criteria level is not affected based on the setting. Rather, only the location spoken in the announcement is based on the jumper setting. See, Morris, Figs. 5-7, col. 7, 11. 38-65. The configurable announcement of Morris combined with the settable threshold of Handley does not prove obvious the concept of a criteria being set at the hazard detector based on a designated location. While Morris describes an announcement that indicates a location, the threshold level evaluated is never adjusted, let alone a pre-alarm criteria be set based on information obtained from a remote server based on a provided location. App. Br. 5. First, Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Handley does not disclose a particular location. However, in addition to citing Handley for this limitation, the Examiner also cites Morris. Final Act. 3--4 (" ... for each particular location within a residence as taught by Morris"). Then, 4 Appeal 2017-011255 Application 14/979, 17 4 Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Morris does not disclose a pre-alarm criteria. However, in addition to Morris, the Examiner also cites Handley for this limitation. Final Act. 3 ("Handley discloses ... a first pre- alarm criteria (e.g. ALARM 1)"). Thus, Appellants do not address the full reasoning of the Examiner's rejection. Instead, Appellants attack the references singly for lacking teachings that the Examiner relied on other references or a combination of references to show. It is well-established that one cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). References must be read, not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in combination with the prior art as a whole. Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097. As Appellants acknowledge, Handley discloses the temperature thresholds of the alarm system are fully programmable and adjustable based upon the location being monitored. App. Br. 5. Further, we find Handley repeatedly makes this disclosure. Handley col. 2, 11. 10-12; col. 5, 11. 64--67; col. 8, 11. 12-14. We conclude this is a more than sufficient basis to combine the Handley and Morris references. These portions of Handley are each cited by the Examiner as disclosing either the alarm criteria, the threshold, or location being monitored ( or all three). Final Act. 3. Also, Appellants have not presented evidence sufficient to show that combining the prior art was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). 5 Appeal 2017-011255 Application 14/979, 17 4 B Appellants raise the following argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Office Action further cites to Cool for allegedly disclosing sensitivity settings for devices being transmitted from a central field panel to detector devices. Final Office Action, p. 4. While the Office Action asserts that Cool considers sensitivity settings being distributed from a central field panel to detector devices, the Applicant can identify no such disclosure in Cool. Rather, regarding sensitivity settings, Cool merely considers that "the field panels . . . may also report information such as sensitivity settings for devices .... " Cool, ,r 20. At no point are sensitivity settings distributed to and enforced by the detector devices. App. Br. 5. We find the following in the Examiner cited portions of Cool. See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3. At paragraph 6, a user may use a service tool to adjust and/or reconfigure parameters. At paragraph 16, the service tool communicates with a control panel. At paragraph 19, a field panel may be arranged as a central panel for a floor of the building. 4 At paragraph 20, control and monitoring of a protection system are distributed to the field panels. Also at paragraph 20, field panels may report information such as sensitivity settings for devices. Essentially, Appellants' argument turns on whether we conclude an artisan would have understood the user adjustable "parameters" of Cool to include the "sensitivity settings" of Cool. We conclude an artisan would have so understood. Therefore, we disagree with Appellants' assertion that 4 We note that at paragraph 18, a protection system includes a central panel, or field panel. 6 Appeal 2017-011255 Application 14/979, 17 4 Cool fails to disclose distributing sensitivity settings from a central field panel to detector devices. C Appellants raise the following argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Final Office Action cites to Handley for disclosing the concept of monitoring for a pre-alarm criteria and a fixed emergency alarm criteria. Final Office Action, p. 3. As explicitly noted by the Office Action, "the temperature thresholds are fully programmable." Id. A key aspect of claim 2 is that while the pre-alarm criteria is set based on location, the [emergency] alarm criteria remains fixed. The fully variable arrangement of Handley does not consider such a partially-fixed and partially- variable based on location arrangement. App. Br. 7. We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. As the Examiner correctly finds (Final Act. 3), Handley teaches that temperature thresholds of the alarm system can be fully programmable. Handley col. 5, 11. 64-67. Handley also teaches it is known that sensor set points can be established during manufacture and not be field programmable. Handley col. 1, 11. 34-- 36. Appellants' Specification at paragraph 136 describes two options for the emergency alarm criteria (threshold) as (1) "may not be adjusted or modified" or (2) "may be adjusted or modified." Contrary to Appellants' argument, Handley teaches that artisans know both of these options. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 2-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 2-21 are not patentable. 7 Appeal 2017-011255 Application 14/979, 17 4 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 2-21 are affirmed. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation