Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2017

13693993 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 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.
13/693,993 12/04/2012 XiuKuan YANG H0037818/4874/116179 9807
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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
amy. hammer @ hu schblackwell .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 XIUKUAN YANG, ZHONGWEI DING,
YANCHAO ZHU, and CHUNFENG WEI
Appeal 2016-001436
Application 13/693,993
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants state the rejection of claims 1, 3—6, 8—10, 12—14 and 17—19 are
the subject of this appeal (App. Br. 2), and further state claims 1, 2, 4—6, 9—
14, and 16—18 are presented for allowance (App. Br. 10). We view these
statements as harmless error as claims 1—20 are before us (see Final Action,
App. Br. 2). As only the independent claims were argued, we consider all
the dependent claims as standing or falling therewith.
Appeal 2016-001436
Application 13/693,993
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “to the generation of emergency
alarms” in security systems (Spec. 11).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a security system;
an internet protocol (IP) video door phone coupled
to the security system;
an interactive display carried by the IP video door
phone;
a gesture file that stores a two-dimensional sequence
of positions;
a comparison processor that detects contact by a
human user with the interactive display, that compares a
sequence of positions made by the contact on the
interactive display with the positions of the gesture file and
that detects a match; and
an alarm processor that sends an alarm message to
the security system upon detecting the match.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—6, 8—10, 12—14, and 17—19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Haywood (US
2009/0072988 Al; published Mar. 19, 2009) and Yeh (US 2010/0261505
Al; published Oct. 14, 2010).
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Haywood, Yeh, and Hedin (US 3,633,167; issued Jan. 4,
1972).
2
Appeal 2016-001436
Application 13/693,993
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Haywood, Yeh, and Platzer (US 2008/0168384
Al; published Jul. 10, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Haywood, Yeh, and Rofougaran (US
2010/0321304 Al; published Dec. 23, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Haywood is not directed to an IP video door
phone, Yeh and Heywood do not disclose a comparison processor as
claimed, and the Examiner is merely picking and choosing from the
references, which is impermissible (App. Br. 6). Additionally, Appellants
contend a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established,
hindsight reconstruction has been used, and the cited references are not
directed to the problem the present invention solves (App. Br. 10). We do
not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 2—
4, 13—18; Final Act. 2—7). Particularly, the Examiner finds Haywood’s
disclosure of a remote unit mounted to a door frame connects via a video
link to a telephone or mobile network teaches or suggests the claimed video
door phone (Ans. 13 citing Haywood 49, 62, and Fig. 1). The Examiner
also finds Yeh’s disclosure of a touch screen that identifies input gestures
and determines whether the gesture matches a preset gesture and, performing
such steps using a cellphone, teaches or suggests a comparison processor
that compares a sequence of positions of a gesture to detect a match as
claimed (Ans. 14 citing Yeh || 29, 30, and Fig. 2). Thus, we agree with the
3
Appeal 2016-001436
Application 13/693,993
Examiner “[a]t the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art to detect gestures as taught by
Yeh in the system of Haywood. One would have been motivated to modify
Haywood in this manner in order to enable more user-friendly operation of
devices with touch screens by permitting easier input of commands (Yeh:
paragraph 0004, lines 3-7)” (Final Act. 8). Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner’s proffered combination of would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
We further note, Appellants provide no persuasive evidence of error
in the Examiner’s findings, but merely repeat the claim language and
provide conclusory attorney commentary that the claimed features are not
obvious (App. Br. 6—8). Merely reciting the language of the claims,
repeating the Examiner’s findings, and asserting the cited prior art references
do not teach or suggest the claim limitations is insufficient (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv) “A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”;
see also In reLovin, 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.”).
We also do not agree the Examiner has not provided a prima facie
case of obviousness. The PTAB carries its procedural burden of establishing
a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in
4
Appeal 2016-001436
Application 13/693,993
“notify[ing] the applicant. . . [by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or
objection or requirement, together with such information and references as
may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of
[the] application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132. This section ‘“is violated when a
rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing
and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.’” In re Jung 637 F.3d
1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) citing Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the Examiner has made reasonable, informative
findings supported by evidence from the cited references. Appellants have
not specifically rebutted these findings.
Lastly, we do not agree with Appellants the rejection is improper
because it does not solve the exact problem as the claimed invention. As the
Examiner finds, MPEP § 2144 IV (Rationale Different from Applicant’s is
Permissible) states “[i]t is not necessary that the prior art suggest the
combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by
applicant” (Ans. 17). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007) (“The second error of the Court of Appeals lay in its assumption that
a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to
those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem.”).
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—20.
5
Appeal 2016-001436
Application 13/693,993
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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).
AFFIRMED
6