Ex Parte YaJun et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 6, 201611965289 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111965,289 12/27/2007 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 09/08/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zhang YaJun 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. H0013897 83641101694/2260 CONFIRMATION NO. 3236 EXAMINER GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/08/2016 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 amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHANG YAJUN, JANET JIN, ENYI CHEN, RUI ZHANG, and THOMAS A. PLOCHER Appeal2014-001086 Application 11/965,289 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-001086 Application 11/965,289 TI'-JVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to computer generated images of a building or region that carry directional specifying indicia to assist a viewer in understanding the orientation of the building or region. See Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method comprising: presenting an image of a three dimensional building on a fire situation control and display unit; displaying a location and arrangement of a plurality of ambient condition detectors on the image of the three dimensional building on the display unit and multi-part direction indicating indicia at multiple, spaced apart locations around and proximate to a selected portion of the building, the direction indicating indicia being manipulated to change location and to always fall within a predetermined maximum size and minimum size as a user zooms in and out of building views, the direction indicating indicia indicating cardinal direction including at least one of north, south, east or west relative to the building, thereby creating a unitary visual presentation while rotating or enlarging the image; and highlighting those condition indicating detectors of the plurality of ambient condition detectors on the display indicating an alarm condition. REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Gusler (US 2002/0158916 Al; Oct. 31, 2002) and Olstead (US 6,208,261 Bl; Mar. 27, 2001). ISSUES Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues: 2 Appeal2014-001086 Application 11/965,289 Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Gusler and Olstead teaches or suggests the limitations recited in independent claim 1? Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings and suggestions of Gusler and Olstead? ANALYSIS Appellants contend claims 1-19 are patentable over Gusler and Olstead because the claimed invention is "entirely different" than Gusler and Olstead and the Examiner has failed to meet the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See App. Br. 5-12. Specifically, Appellants argue none of the embodiments in Gusler disclose a fire situation control and display unit and "direction indicating indicia at multiple, spaced apart locations" ("indicia limitation") of the claimed fire situation control and display unit. App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue Olstead does not disclose "displaying a location and arrangement of a plurality of ambient condition detectors on the image of the three dimensional building on the display unit" and "highlighting those condition indicating detectors of the plurality of ambient condition detectors on the display indicating an alarm condition in Olstead" ("displaying and highlighting" limitations), but merely displays alarms under a map format and the alarms may be displayed under any number of different formats. App. Br. 9. We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. As an initial matter, we observe that many of Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's detailed findings (Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 13-16), but instead merely recite the claim language and assert the references do not teach or suggest the language. See e.g., App. Br. 5---6 (quoting language of claim and 3 Appeal2014-001086 Application 11/965,289 asserting "[t]his is entirely different than Gusler et al. and Olstead."); App. Br. 8 ("neither Gusler et al. nor Olstead discloses the steps of [quoted claim language]."). Such arguments are not substantive arguments for patentability and are insufficient to establish error in the rejection. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for non-obvious distinctions over the prior art."). Furthermore, Appellants' argument that Gusler does not disclose a fire situation control and display unit and the indicia limitation of the fire situation control system control system, is not persuasive as one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Olstead teaches the fire control and display unit and Gusler teaches the indicia limitation. See Ans. 13-14. Specifically, the cited section of Olstead teaches a building alarm system that is used by the fire or police department to locate alarm conditions (i.e., a fire control and display unit). Olstead 1 : 5 6-61. The cited sections of Gusler teaches a shopper position indicator 38 and a geographic orientation icon 300 (i.e., direction indicating indicia). Gusler Fig. 4, i-fi-1 40-41. 4 Appeal2014-001086 Application 11/965,289 Appellants' arguments also do not persuade us that the Examiner errs in finding Olstead teaches or suggests the "displaying and highlighting" limitations. See Ans. 15-16. Olstead describes a visual alarm display (V AD) system that is "used in the usual manner as explained above, by the fire or police department to locate and proceed to the area where the alarm condition is occurring." Olstead 1:56-61. In the referenced explanation of VAD systems, Olstead describes the VAD system visually indicates the geographical area layout (location and arrangement) of various types of alarm sensors (ambient condition detectors) generating the alarm condition (highlighting detectors displaying an alarm condition). Olstead 1: 10-24. Appellants' arguments do not provide sufficient argument or explanation to persuade us that these teachings of Olstead would not have suggested the disputed limitations to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531F.2d1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976) ("A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art."). Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the modification would involve a change in the principle of operation of Gusler (App. Br. 7) and the cited references do not recognized the problem solved by the claimed invention (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants contend adding ambient condition detectors and especially on a display indicating an alarm condition to Gusler' s system, is not directed to "shopping environmental factors and would be destructive to the peace of mind of shoppers and to the shopping environment" and thus, would change the principle of operation of Gusler (App. Br. 7). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Initially, we 5 Appeal2014-001086 Application 11/965,289 note Appellants have not articulated the "principle of operation" that would be changed. Moreover, the shopping environment taught by Gusler need not be bodily incorporated into Olstead's visual alarm system, but rather consideration is given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. In addition, we are not persuaded the Examiner's proffered combination does not recognize the problem solved by the claimed invention. "In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under §103." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Moreover, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 16), the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 US at 416. Furthermore, Appellants do not persuade us that combining Olstead's visual alarm display system with the direction indicating indicia taught by Gusler would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher- Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the reasons stated above, Appellants do not establish error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-19, for which Appellants do not present separate arguments for patentability. 6 Appeal2014-001086 Application 11/965,289 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19. 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(±). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation