Ex Parte Zywicki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2016

13325515 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016)

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.
13/325,515 12/14/2011 Stan Zywicki H0028712-1161.1611101 3890
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
12/08/2016 EXAMINER
PAN, YUHUI R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 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 @ honey well, 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 STAN ZYWICKI, CARY LEEN, and ERIC BARTON
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, DAVID C. McKONE, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—15 and 17—20, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. Claim 16 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning
(“HVAC”) controllers for controlling HVAC systems. Spec. 1:4—5. An
HVAC controller may store a delta T limit, including a maximum and/or a
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
minimum delta T limit. Id. at 1:18—19. A delta T is a difference or change
in temperature between a return air side and a discharge air side of an
HVAC system for the heating and/or cooling mode. Id. at 5:11—17.
According to the Specification,
[t]he HVAC controller may compare a measured delta T value
against a delta T limit to determine if the delta T limit has been
violated. If the HVAC controller determines that a delta T limit
has been violated, the HVAC [controller may log the violation,
and in some cases, display a user alert on a display of the
HVAC controller.
Id. at 1:19-23.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. An HVAC controller configured to control one or
more components of an HVAC system, the HVAC controller
comprising:
a housing;
a user interface including a display;
a memory;
an I/O block for receiving one or more signals from the
HVAC system and for providing one or more control signals to
the HVAC system;
a controller coupled to the memory, the user interface
and the I/O block, wherein the user interface including the
display, the memory, the I/O block and the controller are
housed by the housing, the controller programmed to accept a
delta T limit via the user interface of the HVAC controller; and
the controller further configured to monitor one or more
signals received via the I/O block to determine if the delta T
limit has been violated, indicating a delta T fault, and to display
on the display of the HVAC controller a user alert for at least
some detected delta T faults.
2
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
THE REFERENCES and REJECTION
Claims 1—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leen (US 2009/0140056 Al, published June 4, 2009),
Pouchak (US 2007/0114291 Al, published May 24, 2007) and Hoog
(US 6,385,510 Bl, issued May 7, 2002). Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 8—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leen, Pouchak, Hoog, and Barbier (US 6,578,373 Bl,
issued June 17, 2003). Id. at 8—15.
Claims 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leen and Hoog. Id. at 15—17.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leen, Hoog, and Pouchak. Id. at 17—19.
ANALYSIS
Scope and Content of the Prior Art
Leen describes an HVAC controller (e.g., a thermostat), including a
memory block, an input/output (“I/O”) block, a user interface with a display,
and a controller coupled to the memory block, the I/O block, and the user
interface, ah housed within a housing. Leen H 25—30, Figs. 1, 2.
Pouchak describes interfacing a personal digital assistant (“PDA”)
with an HVAC controller (e.g., a programmable thermostat). Pouchak H 8—
9, 14—16. The PDA can be used for automatic testing, checkout, analysis,
and diagnosis of the HVAC system. Id. 115. For example, the PDA can
display a configuration tool for connecting to, modifying the configuration
of, and calibrating the programmable thermostat. Id. H 87—90. The
configuration tool can collect data, including the entry and discharge air
3
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
temperatures over a time interval and the cooling coil delta temperature that
is the difference between the coil entering and discharge air temperatures.
Id. 1223. The PDA can be used to test sensors and display noted failures,
errors, and dysfunctions. Id. 1225.
Hoog describes a remote monitoring device for monitoring the
performance of residential and light commercial HVAC systems. Hoog,
1:11—16. In its description of related art, Hoog explains that performance
monitors are designed to use sensors to measure a delta T. Id. at 1:52—57. A
contractor enters high and low heat delta T limits and high and low cool
delta T limits into such a monitor. Id. at 1:61—63. When the HVAC system
exceeds any of these delta T limits, an alarm (such as a flashing light or
sounding buzzer) is sounded, or a message is sent via modem and telephone
to the contractor. Id. at 1:63—67, 8:54—9:9, Fig. 2b.
Rejection of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Leen teaches a housing, a
user interface including a display, a memory, an I/O block, and a controller
coupled to the user interface, memory, and I/O block. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner further finds that Pouchak teaches a controller configured to
monitor one or more signals received via an I/O block to determine if a delta
T limit has been violated and to display a user alert for a detected fault
(although not necessarily a delta T fault). Id. at 4. The Examiner also finds
that Hoog teaches a controller programmed to accept a delta T limit via a
user interface and to indicate a delta T fault. Id. at 4—5.
The Examiner finds that a skilled artisan would have combined the
teachings of Leen, Pouchak, and Hoog such that Leen’s HVAC controller
4
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
would have incorporated Pouchak’s technique of determining that a delta T
limit has been violated and Leen’s user interface would have incorporated
Hoog’s teaching of accepting a delta T time limit at a user interface. Id. at
3—5. In this combination, Pouchak’s user alert for a detected fault would,
per Hoog’s teachings, include an indication of a delta T fault, and, per
Leen’s teaching, would display on Leen’s user interface. Id.
The Examiner finds reasons to combine stated in Pouchak and Hoog.
Id. at 4 (citing Pouchak 115 (“A PDA and its interfacing with the thermostat
of an air management system may also be used for automatic testing,
checkout, analysis and diagnosis of the system.”)), 5 (citing Hoog, 3:29-31
(“It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide an efficient
means and method for determining ideal operating performance levels of an
HVAC unit.”)).
Appellants contend that a skilled artisan would not have been
motivated to combine Pouchak with Leen because Pouchak initiates any
diagnostic testing of an HVAC system, including delta T testing, via a PDA
that is separate and distinct from a thermostat and that must be manually
connected to the thermostat. App. Br. 8—9. According to Appellants,
Pouchak itself does not consider the configuration tool 12 to be
part of the user interface of the HVAC controller (thermostat
11). It is the thermostat 11 in Pouchak, not the configuration
tool 12, that is the HVAC controller, and more particularly, the
HVAC controller that is configured to “control one or more
components of the HVAC system”, as is recited in claim 1.
Id. at 9; see also Reply Br. 2 (“Appellants[] respectfully assert that in view
of Pouchak, one would be motivated to use a separate device for the
diagnostic features taught by Pouchak.”). Similarly, Appellants argue that
“Pouchak does not disclose displaying the errors, failures and/or
5
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
dysfunctions on the display of the thermostat itself. Nor does Pouchak
disclose that the errors, failures and dysfunctions include a delta T fault.”
App. Br. 11.
Appellants’ argument is an attack on Pouchak individually without
consideration of the combined teachings of Leen, Pouchak, and Hoog, an
approach the Federal Circuit has counseled against. 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.”). As the Examiner
explains in response, Leen’s HVAC controller includes installer and testing
interfaces. Ans. 2. According to the Examiner, a skilled artisan would have
incorporated the additional test described in Pouchak with the HVAC
controller described in Leen. Id. Further, as explained above, Hoog teaches
an alert for a delta T fault.
Appellants essentially argue that the cited references cannot be
physically combined. The issue, however, is not whether Pouchak’s PDA
would have been incorporated into Leen’s system, but rather how the
teachings of those references would have been combined. See In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1332—33 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. . . . Rather, the
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). We agree with
the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have incorporated Pouchak’s
teachings of determining that a delta T limit has been violated and
displaying a user alert for a detected fault with Leen’s teaching of an HVAC
6
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
controller with a user interface and display and further with Hoog’s teaching
of displaying an alert for a delta T fault.
Appellants further argue that Pouchak teaches away from the
Examiner’s proposed combination. App. Br. 9—10. Specifically, Appellants
argue that Pouchak describes advantages of using a PDA to interface with an
HVAC controller, advantages that allegedly would be lost in a combination
with Leen. Id.', Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, “[b]y stating that
substantial benefits are achieved by ‘removing the thermostat configuration
installer interface from the thermostat operator interface to a PDA’, a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading the entirety of Pouchak, would clearly be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” App.
Br. 10. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3), however, that disclosing some
examples as preferred does not necessarily teach away from non-preferred
examples. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1331 (“A reference may be read for all
that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.”), 1334 (“This
court has further explained that just because better alternatives exist in the
prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness
purposes.”). Rather, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants have not shown persuasively
that a skilled artisan would have been discouraged or led in a direction
divergent from their invention.
Appellants raise similar arguments as to Hoog. Specifically,
Appellants argue that “Hoog relates to a performance monitor that is
7
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
connected to a thermostat, and like the PDA of Pouchak, the performance
monitor of Hoog appears to be a separate device from the thermostat” and
that “Hoog cannot be seen to disclose a controller of an HVAC controller
(housed in the same housing as the user interface including the display, the
memory and the I/O block of the HVAC controller) that is programmed to
accept a delta T limit via the user interface of the HVAC controller as
recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 11. Once again, Appellants improperly attack
Hoog individually without accounting for the teachings of Leen and
Pouchak. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Appellants argue that modifying an HVAC controller with the
capabilities of a central station “would require further programming and
manipulation of the controller, plus likely additional hardware and expense,
beyond what is fairly taught by any of Leen, Pouchak, or Hoog.” Reply Br.
4. We do not understand the Examiner’s finding to be that all of the
capabilities of a central station would have been incorporated into Leen’s
HVAC controller. Rather, the Examiner finds that an alert corresponding to
one particular test, an alert for a delta T test as taught in Hoog, would have
been incorporated into a system of Leen and Pouchak. Final Rej. 4—5. In
any case, Appellants do not cite evidence for their contention. Therefore, it
is unpersuasive.
Thus, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Claims 2—7 depend from claim 1. Appellants do not argue claims
2—7 separately. App. Br. 12. Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2—7.
8
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
Rejection of Claims 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and adds “wherein the controller is
further programmed to display a user alert on the display only after a pre­
determined number of delta T faults are detected by the controller.” Claim 9
is substantively similar to claim 1, but, similar to claim 8, recites that the
controller is programmed to display a user alert on the display “only after a
pre-determined number of delta T faults are detected by the controller,
wherein the pre-determined number is greater than one.” The Examiner
makes similar findings for the aspects of claim 9 that overlap with claim 1.
Final Act. 9—11. The Examiner cites Barbier for the additional aspect of
claims 8 and 9. Id. at 9, 12.
Barbier describes a floodback detector for a refrigerant system that
employs, inter alia, temperature rate of change. Barbier, Abstract. The
Examiner finds that Barbier teaches triggering an alert only after a pre­
determined number of faults greater than one are detected by the controller.
Final Act. 9, 12. The Examiner further finds that a skilled artisan would
have incorporated Barbier’s teachings in order to minimize nuisance alarms.
Id.
As to claims 8 and 9, Appellants essentially incorporate or repeat their
arguments for claim 1. App. Br. 13—16. As to Barbier, Appellants argue
that “absent Applicants’ own disclosure, there would appear to be no
motivation or other reason to combine Barbier with Leen, Pouchak, and
Hoog.” Id. at 16. Appellants, however, do not address the Examiner’s
stated reason to combine or explain why it is incorrect. We find that the
Examiner’s reason to combine Barbier with the other cited references has
9
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
some rational underpinning. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8 and 9.
Claims 10-15 depend from claim 9. Appellants do not argue claims
10-15 separately. App. Br. 16. Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10—15.
Rejection of Claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Regarding claim 17, similar to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Leen
teaches an HVAC controller including a user interface with a display, a
memory, and a controller, all housed by a housing. Final Act. 16. The
Examiner further finds that Leen teaches applying a parameter to each of
two or more equipment stage combinations that support a selected HVAC
operational mode, albeit the parameter is not a delta T limit. Id. The
Examiner finds that Hoog teaches accepting one or more delta T limits for a
selected HVAC operational mode of the HVAC system entered by a user
and that this delta T limit would have been the parameter applied to the two
or more equipment stage combinations of Leen. Id.
As they do for claim 1, Appellants argue that Hoog is not combinable
with Leen because Hoog describes a performance monitor that is a device
separate from a thermostat. App. Br. 17. For the reasons given for claim 1,
this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants further argue that Hoog is silent as to “applying a delta T
limit of the one or more delta T limits to each of two or more equipment
stage combinations that support the selected HVAC operational mode,” as
recited in claim 17 (emphasis Appellants’). Id. According to Appellants,
the Examiner is advancing an unsupported inherency theory. Id. at 17—18.
10
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
As the Examiner reiterates in the Answer, though, the Examiner finds
that Leen teaches applying a parameter to each of two or more equipment
stage combinations. Ans. 5 (citing Leen, Figs. 132, 133). The Examiner
finds that Hoog teaches a delta T time limit for an operational mode and that
a skilled artisan would have applied Hoog’s teaching of a delta T time limit
to Leen’s teaching of applying a parameter to each of two or more
equipment stage combinations. Id. Appellants’ argument once again attacks
a reference (Hoog) individually without accounting for the Examiner’s
proposed combination. This approach is again unpersuasive. See Merck,
800 F.2d at 1097. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17.
Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17. Appellants do not argue
claims 18 and 19 separately. App. Br. 18—19. Appellants have not shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 and 19.
Rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 20 depends from claim 17. The Examiner cites Pouchak for the
additional limitation of claim 20 and finds that a skilled artisan would have
combined Pouchak with Leen and Hoog for reasons similar to those given
for claim 1. Final Act. 17—18. Appellants argue that Pouchak teaches away
from this combination, presumably referencing its arguments for claim 1.
App. Br. 19. For the reasons given above, these arguments are not
persuasive. Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 20.
11
Appeal 2015-006949
Application 13/325,515
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—15 and 17—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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12