Ex Parte Zywicki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13326553 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
13/326,553 12/15/2011 Stan Zywicki H0028695-1161.1569101 2118
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
PAN, YUHUI R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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
Honeywell.USPTO@STWiplaw.com
sherry, vallabh @honeywell.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, ERIC BARTON,
PETER JOSEPH ERICKSON, and
JONATHAN FRENZ
Appeal 2016-008700
Application 13/326,553
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, 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 and 3—28, which are all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-008700
Application 13/326,553
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “HVAC controllers . . . used for
controlling HVAC systems” and “record[ing] performance parameter data
related to the performance of a connected HVAC system over a period of
time” (Spec. 1:17-21).
Claims 1, 20, 26, and 27 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An HVAC controller for use with an HVAC system,
wherein the HVAC system includes one or more HVAC
components that are configured to supply conditioned air to an
inside space of a building, the HVAC controller comprising:
a housing;
a user interface including a display housed by the housing;
a memory; and
a controller coupled to the user interface and the memory,
the controller housed by the housing and configured to store
performance parameter data related to the performance of the
HVAC system in a performance log in the memory of the HVAC
controller over a period of time, the performance parameter data
including numerical values for one or more different sensed
parameters that are each sensed in an air flow stream flowing
within the HVAC system itself, the controller is also configured
to receive a first user request via the user interface, the first user
request selecting a first one of two or more predetermined lengths
of time, and in response to the first user request, retrieve at least
some of the performance parameter data from the performance
log that corresponds to the selected first one of the two or more
predetermined lengths of time, and to display one or more
numerical values that are based on the performance parameter
data that corresponds to the selected first one of the two or more
predetermined lengths of time on the display of the HVAC
controller.
2
Appeal 2016-008700
Application 13/326,553
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—5, 7, 10—17, 26, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ehlers (US
2009/0157529 Al; published June 18, 2009) and Hoglund (US
2008/0134087 Al; published June 5, 2008).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ehlers, Hoglund, and Alles (US 2005/0116055
Al; published June 2, 2005).
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ehlers, Hoglund, and Bujak (US 5,369,597; issued
Nov. 29, 1994).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ehlers, Hoglund, and Votaw (US 2010/0314458
Al; published Dec. 16, 2010).
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ehlers, Hoglund, and
Grabinger (US 2012/0079425 Al; published Mar. 29, 2012).
(6) The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ehlers, Hoglund, and Koster (US 2009/0140063 Al;
published June 4, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Ehlers and Hoglund does not
teach an HVAC controller “configured to store performance parameter data
related to the performance of the HVAC system,” the performance
parameter data “including numerical values for one or more different sensed
3
Appeal 2016-008700
Application 13/326,553
parameters that are each sensed in an air flow stream flowing within the
HVAC system itself,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 2—3).
Particularly, Appellants argue Ehlers does not teach a controller “monitoring
the performance characteristics of any particular HVAC system
component”; rather, Ehlers’ controller “monitors energy efficiency of a site”
(App. Br. 12-13 (citing Ehlers H 57, 81, 235; Figs. 4E-4I, 4L-AM)).
Appellants also argue the Examiner’s reasoning for combining Ehlers and
Hoglund is “unsupported by any ‘evidence’ of record whatsoever” (App. Br.
12). Appellants assert the Examiner’s combination of Ehlers and Hoglund
does not teach or suggest the claimed “controller” because Ehlers “fails to
teach a controller that uses discharge air temperature” (a parameter sensed in
an air flow stream flowing within the HVAC system itself), and Hoglund
does not teach the “discharge air temperature provides an indication of the
operational health and performance of [Ehlers’] HVAC system” (Reply Br.
2; App. Br. 11). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Ehlers’ thermostat includes a
controller storing performance parameter data related to the HVAC system’s
performance as claimed. That is, Ehlers’ performance parameter data
includes data sensed by humidity and indoor air temperature sensors, and
“operational health and performance data” including the HVAC system’s
energy consumption and HVAC-controlled daily temperature vs. setpoint
temperature (Final Act. 2—3, 5 (citing Ehlers ^fl[ 123—127, 148, 153, 182,
227; Figs. 3 A—3B); Ans. 2—3). Hoglund’s discharge air temperature also
teaches a parameter sensed in an air flow stream flowing within the HVAC
system itself, as claimed (Final Act. 5 (citing Hoglund 1 52; Fig. 4)).
4
Appeal 2016-008700
Application 13/326,553
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner’s reasoning for combining Ehlers and Hoglund is “unsupported by
any ‘evidence’ of record whatsoever” (App. Br. 12). The Examiner has
cited evidence that Ehlers monitors “operational health and performance” of
an HVAC system, and Hoglund’s “discharge air temperature . . . reflects the
operational health and performance of the HVAC” within low and high limit
lockout values of temperature (Ans. 2—3 (citing Ehlers 1182; Hoglund
70-71)). The Examiner also reasonably finds and articulates a reason
having a rational underpinning for combining Ehlers’ controller to store
Hoglund’s discharge air temperature parameter (parameter sensed in an air
flow stream flowing within Hoglund’s HVAC system)—thereby enhancing
the HVAC’s user interface and performance control process by monitoring
the air temperature delivered by the HVAC (App. Br. 2—3 (citing Ehlers
1182; Hoglund H 6, 51-53); Final Act. 2-3, 6).
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings, as
Appellants improperly attack the references individually where the rejection
is based on a combination. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981). Particularly, Appellants argue Ehlers does not sense a parameter in
an air flow stream flowing within the HVAC system itself (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner, however, relies on Hoglund for this feature (Final Act. 5).
Appellants also argue Hoglund’s teachings—directed to “a zone
control panel and not a thermostat”—are inapplicable to Ehlers’ “non-zone
control panel” (Reply Br. 3^4; App. Br. 13). The argument is not persuasive
because Hoglund’s zoned control—controlling thermostats located within
each zone—is similar to Ehlers’ zoned control of multiple thermostats (see
Ehlers H 320, 328; Hoglund 14).
5
Appeal 2016-008700
Application 13/326,553
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, Ehlers teaches a
controller monitoring performance characteristics of an HVAC system, and
the combination of Ehlers and Hoglund is proper. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 6—19, and
28 argued for their dependency therefrom (App. Br. 15, 19-20). Appellants
contend the rejections of dependent claim 5 and independent claim 27 are in
error for the same reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 15, 20). Thus, for the same
reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejections of claims 5 and 27.
Appellants provide substantially the same arguments for independent
claim 26 as for claim 1 (App. Br. 16—17; Reply Br. 5—6). Appellants further
restate the language of claim 26 and assert Ehlers and Hoglund do not teach
the claimed limitations (App. Br. 15—16). Such arguments are not
substantive arguments of Examiner error. (See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not
be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”).)
Appellants then contend, in the Reply Brief, that Ehlers does not
display a minimum numerical value and/or a maximum numerical value for
multiple performance parameters as recited in claim 26, because one of
Ehlers’ parameters (electrical consumption) “is not related solely to the
HVAC system” (Reply Br. 5). Appellants’ argument is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 26, which does not require the claimed parameters to
relate solely to the HVAC system, but only requires “storing performance
parameter data related to the performance of the HVAC system” (emphasis
added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Ehlers’ teaching of daily low
and high temperature, in combination with Hoglund’s teaching of discharge
air temperature, supports the claimed multiple performance parameters
6
Appeal 2016-008700
Application 13/326,553
providing “data related to the performance of the HVAC system” (Final Act.
11—12 (citing Ehlers 124—125; Hoglund 1 52, Fig. 4)). In light of the
above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 26.
With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants provide
substantially the same arguments as for claim 1 (App. Br. 18). Additionally,
Appellants argue Alles’ summary table does not include values for a
performance parameter “sensed within the HVAC system itselF’ and values
based on “performance parameter data that corresponds to the selected first
one of the two or more predetermined lengths of time,” as claimed (App. Br.
18 (citing Alles 130; Fig. 23)). Appellants’ arguments do not address the
Examiner’s rejection based on the combination of references, in which the
Examiner relies on (i) Hoglund for the claimed performance parameter
sensed within the HVAC system itself, (ii) Ehlers for the claimed
performance parameter data corresponding to the selected first one of the
two or more predetermined lengths of time, and (iii) Alles for the claimed
summary table including numerical values for different performance
parameters (Final Act. 13—15).
Appellants also argue the Examiner’s combination of Alles, Hoglund,
and Ehlers is improper because Alles’ teachings—directed to a “zone
climate control system that uses a graphical application running on a
personal data assistant or computer to specify the temperature schedules for
each room for each day”—are not applicable to Ehlers’ “non-zone control
system” (App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 7). As discussed supra, with
respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded Ehlers’ disclosure is restricted to a
non-zone control system. Additionally, the Examiner has articulated
7
Appeal 2016-008700
Application 13/326,553
sufficient reasoning for incorporating Alles’ summary table into Ehlers’
multiple sensor controller, to “display[] [the] multiple sensors’ readings in a
summary table [, which] would make it easier for the user to monitor those
sensors’ readings” (Ans. 5—6 (citing Ehlers 1227, Fig. 3B; Alles 1 30)).
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 20. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 20, and claims 21—25 argued for
their dependency (App. Br. 18).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—28 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
8