Ex Parte Walter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2016

12411193 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/411,193
90545 7590
HONEYWELL/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
0312512009
03/03/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerald Walter
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.
H0022766-1161.1417101 4680
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.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 GERALD WALTER and JOSEPH STEVEN MAJEWSKI
Appeal2014-001972
Application 12/411,193
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal the Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-001972
Application 12/411,193
Introduction
The invention relates to "defining user interface components within a
building control or automation system" in which "[t]he user interface
definition may be rendered on a remote display device" and "[t]he rendering
may be accomplished through a making of a set of object types which
represent the components of the user interface." Abstract.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A building automation system comprising:
an HV AC system in communication with and controlled
by the building automation system; and
a remote display including a display controller and a
configurable user interface, wherein the display controller is
configured to receive and interpret one or more standardized
object types selected by a user, the display controller further
configured to render and display the one or more standardized
object data types selected by the user on the user interface based
on a characteristic of the remote display, wherein the
standardized object types selected by the user represent
components of a user interface for a display of the building
automation system, wherein the one or more standardized object
types selected by the user define a navigation hierarchy within
the user interface and wherein each has a functionality that
defines a look and behavior of the user interface. 1
1 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to review the claims and disclosure for compliance under 35 U.S.C. §
112 for claim terms such as "display controller" which do not appear
supported by the disclosure.
2
Appeal2014-001972
Application 12/411,193
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Becker (US 5,297,252; issued March 22, 1994)
in view of Hull (US 6,487,457 Bl; issued November 26, 2002) and further
in view of Candy Wong (US 2003/0067489 Al; published April 10, 2003).
Final Action 2.
Claims 2, 6-8, 10-13, 15, and 19-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Hull, further in view of
Candy Wong, and further in view of Poulet (US 2008/0270937 Al;
published October 30, 2008). Final Action 7.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Becker in view of Hull, further in view of Candy Wong,
and further in view of O'Mahoney (US 6,907,300 B2; issued June 14, 2005).
Final Action 23.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 12, 2013), the Answer (mailed
October 7, 2013), the Final Rejection (mailed November 30, 2012), the
Advisory Action (mailed February 11, 2013), and the Reply Brief (filed
December 5, 2013) for the respective details. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We concur with the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to
3
Appeal2014-001972
Application 12/411,193
Appellants' Appeal Brief and adopt them as our own, except any findings
that we aside in the analysis as follows.
Appellants first argue "none of the references appears to teach or
suggest" the entire remote display limitation (see claim 1 on page 2 above),
with particular emphasis on the claim term "selected by a user." Appeal
Brief 10. In particular, Appellants contend the claim requires that "the user
interface is created or configured upon receiving and interpreting one or
more standardized object types selected by the user." Appeal Brief 11,
emphasis in original.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. With respect to the
configuration of the user interface and the selection of object types, the
Examiner finds that Becker teaches:
a configurable user interface (e.g. five kinds of graphics displays
will be configured, as discussed in col. 7 lines 27-33), the display
controller further configured receive and interpret one or more
object data types selected by the user, the display controller
further configured to render and display the one or more object
data types selected by the user on the user interface (e.g. graphics
windows, as discussed in col. 5, line 52---col. 6, line 6, touch-
points and icons, as discussed in col. 6, lines 36-43, buttons, as
discussed in col. 6, lines 18-35, and system title, system status,
and time/date windows, as discussed in col. 5, lines 35-51 ).
Final Rejection 2-3. Although Appellants quote Becker 7:27-33 (see
Appeal Brief 12), Appellants have not persuasively provided arguments or
technical evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. See, e.g., In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory
statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case).
4
Appeal2014-001972
Application 12/411,193
Additionally, Appellants attack the references individually.2 See
Appeal Brief 11-17, Reply Brief 2--4. Appellants argue "the combination of
Becker, Hull and Candy Wong still fails to teach or suggest" the claimed
display controller because "[t]hese features are missing from the combined
combination," however Appellants identify no specific error in the
Examiner's findings. Appeal Brief 17. Such a conclusory statement is
insufficient to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case.
Appellants also argue the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the
combination of Becker with Hull. Appeal Brief 12-13. In particular,
Appellants cite Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Inter. 1993), to contend the Examiner has not provided "sufficient objective
reasoning" to support the combination of Becker and Hull. Appeal Brief 13.
We are not persuaded. We conclude the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for the combination of the three references provides a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Final Action
5; see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Additionally,
we note the Examiner's finding in the Advisory Action that the combination
of Hull and Becker would "support expanded capabilities exceeding those of
a typical building management system." Advisory Action 2.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error and
therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as independent claim 18, not separately argued with
2 "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
5
Appeal2014-001972
Application 12/411,193
particularity. See Appeal Brief 17-18. We also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-3, 5-17, and 19-27, for the
reasons articulated above. See Appeal Brief 17-19.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-27
is 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6