Hayward Industries, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2021

2019005995 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2021)

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.
14/213,172 03/14/2014 David M. Blaine 96964-01435 9106
159107 7590 02/26/2021
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP / Hayward Industries, Inc.
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
EXAMINER
HACKENBERG, RACHEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID M. BLAINE, KENNETH W. WHITE JR., CRAIG
ANDREW HORROCKS, JAMES MURDOCK, DOUGLAS M. SAWYER
JR., CARL BRUNETTI, ROBERT DONALD HEON, and LYNNETTE
RIVERA
Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Hayward Industries, Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for dynamic device
discovery and address assignment. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A pool or spa system including a plurality of components
operatively coupled via a communications network supporting
dynamic device discovery, the system comprising:
a pool or spa;
a plurality of pool or spa slave devices, each of the
plurality of pool or spa slave devices being operable to perform
one or more operations with respect to the pool or spa, each of
the plurality of pool or spa slave devices being un-configured and
having a unique device identifier; and
a master controller operatively coupled to the plurality of
pool or spa slave devices to form a network, the master controller
being programmed to assign each of the plurality of pool or spa
slave devices a network address based on the unique device
identifier of each of the plurality of pool or spa slave devices and
in response to bidirectional communication between the master
controller and the plurality of pool or spa slave devices to
configure the plurality of pool or spa slave devices and enable
addressed communication between the master controller and the
plurality of pool or spa slave devices,
wherein, in response to a device discovery request
transmitted from the master controller to one of the plurality of
pool or spa slave devices, the one of the plurality of pool or spa
slave devices transmits a response to the master controller
describing at least one pool or spa device capability of the one of
the plurality of pool or spa slave devices, and
wherein the unique device identifier includes a pool or spa
device type identifier which uniquely identifies the type of pool
or spa device.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

3
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Waters US 7,356,011 B1 Apr. 8, 2008
Mocanu US 2011/0002261 A1 Jan. 6, 2011
Baykal US 2012/0093508 A1 Apr. 19, 2012
Kessler US 2013/0124763 A1 May 16, 2013
Lawson US 2013/0211546 A1 Aug. 15, 2013
Mcqueen US 2014/0064139 A1 Mar. 6, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Waters, McQueen, and Lawson. Final Act. 2.
Claims 2–4, 6–10, 12–16, 18–23 stand rejected under pre–AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Waters, McQueen, Baykal,
and Lawson. Final Act. 6.
Claim 5 stands rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Waters, McQueen, Lawson, and Mocanu. Final Act. 28.
Claims 11 and 17 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Waters, McQueen, Baykal, Lawson, and Kessler.
Final Act. 29.

ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references
teach or suggest

2 All citations herein to the references are to the first named inventor/author
only.
Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

4
wherein, in response to a device discovery request transmitted
from the master controller . . . the one of the plurality of pool or
spa slave devices transmits a response to the master controller
describing at least one pool or spa device capability of the one of
the plurality of pool or spa slave devices,
as recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in determining the cited
references teach or suggest “wherein the unique device identifier includes a
pool or spa device type identifier which uniquely identifies the type of pool
or spa device,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combination of
Waters, McQueen, and Lawson. The Examiner relies primarily on Waters
as teaching the limitations relating to networking of components in a
master/slave configuration with bi-directional communication, device
discovery, and configurability. Final Act. 3 (citing Waters Fig. 11, col. 4,
ll. 50–51, col. 8, ll. 27–30, 53–58). The Examiner cites McQueen as
teaching the use of pool and spa controllers in a master/slave context. Final
Act. 4 (citing McQueen ¶¶ 30, 41–42). The Examiner supplements the
teachings of Waters and McQueen with those of Lawson, determining that
Lawson demonstrates that it was known in the art for unique device
identifiers to include type identifiers which uniquely identify the type of
device. Final Act. 5 (citing Lawson ¶¶ 47, 57). Against that background,
we address the specific issues raised by Appellant.

Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

5
First Issue
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s determinations with respect to the
first “wherein” limitation of claim 1, which recites
wherein, in response to a device discovery request transmitted
from the master controller to one of the plurality of pool or spa
slave devices, the one of the plurality of pool or spa slave devices
transmits a response to the master controller describing at least
one pool or spa device capability of the one of the plurality of
pool or spa slave devices.
The Examiner finds that McQueen teaches this limitation. Final Act. 4
(citing McQueen ¶ 30). The Examiner also finds this limitation, with the
exception of a pool/spa environment, taught by Lawson. Ans. 3–4 (citing
Lawson ¶¶ 35, 47, 57). In the Answer, the Examiner finds that although not
explicitly teaching a pool/spa environment, “Lawson teaches on unique
device identifiers for the many types of devices that a pool or spa system
would use.” Ans. 4. Also in the Answer, the Examiner further reiterates
that McQueen teaches the limitation, finding that McQueen “teaches on the
environment of the instant application” and also “teaches on communication
between the servers and the devices which are pool or spa-type devices.”
Ans. 4–5. The Examiner acknowledges that “McQueen does not [provide]
further detail of the pool or spa device type capabilities beyond determining
IP capabilities,” but “does incorporate by reference . . . US Patent 7,292,898
(Clark) which goes into detail on the pool or spa device is providing pool or
spa type device capabilities to the server.” Ans. 5 (citing Clark col. 3, ll. 33–
35).
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because Lawson teaches
automatically generating and transmitting a device profile as part of an
installation process that “is independent of any requests and is not performed
Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

6
during a discovery phase between two devices.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant
further argues Lawson describes transmitting device profiles by an industrial
controller in an industrial process environment, with no mention of any pool
or spa as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 16–17. In the Reply Brief,
Appellant addresses the findings made with respect to McQueen and Clark.
Reply Br. 11–16. With respect to McQueen, Appellant argues that
McQueen “is silent regarding how information is obtained or derived from
the controller 14 from the sensors associated with a pool or spa,” and
therefore does not teach any response “to a device discovery request
transmitted from the master controller” as required by the claim. Reply
Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further argues the teachings of Clark
are not pertinent because “Clark merely discloses establishing a control
session to facilitate issuing commands from a network interface . . . and is
silent regarding whether the network interface or the server ‘is aware of the
capabilities of each pool or spa device’.” Reply Br. 14 (citing Clark col. 7,
ll. 15–17) (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded of error. McQueen describes a pool and spa
control system that allows a controller to control pools and spas and their
associated devices. See McQueen ¶ 41. McQueen teaches that the
controller may gather information from pool and spa equipment, including
“water jets, lights, pumps, heaters, active filters, etc.” McQueen ¶ 25. This
information may include “[a]dvanced warning as to equipment degradation
or impending water-quality issues.” McQueen ¶ 30. McQueen further notes
that “information [may be] obtained or derived from sensors associated with
a pool or spa,” and that the “controller may be used to control pool/spa
equipment as desired to achieve certain results.” McQueen ¶ 42 (reference
Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

7
numerals omitted). Thus, McQueen describes a system whereby a master
controller requests information from sensors and other pool and/or spa
equipment, which teaches “a request transmitted from the master controller
to one of the plurality of pool or spa slave devices,” as recited in the argued
limitation. The above cited portions of McQueen further teach that in
response to that request, the pool/spa equipment transmits information, in
the form of equipment degradation information, which describes the
capability of the devices. That is, by indicating that certain equipment is
degrading, the response to the controller is indicative of diminishing device
capability in the pool/spa devices.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of
McQueen also teach that “in response to” the request, “the one of the
plurality of pool or spa slave devices transmits a response to the master
controller describing at least one pool or spa device capability of the one of
the plurality of pool or spa slave devices.”
Appellant contends that these teachings do not relate to a device
discovery request. Reply Br. 13. However, the Examiner does not rely on
McQueen as teaching device discovery requests. The Examiner cites Waters
in this regard. Specifically, the Examiner notes that Waters teaches the use
of a master controller engaging in a device discovery which allows a user to
issue commands to configure the selected devices. Final Act. 3 (citing
Waters col. 8, ll. 53–48). Thus, the Examiner does not rely on McQueen as
teaching the recited “device discovery request,” and instead relies on Waters
to demonstrate that such requests were known in the art. Appellant’s
argument that McQueen fails to teach or suggest a device discovery request
is unpersuasive because it attacks McQueen in isolation, while the
Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

8
Examiner’s rejection was based on what the combined teachings of
McQueen and Waters would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the
cited references teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious
wherein, in response to a device discovery request transmitted
from the master controller to one of the plurality of pool or spa
slave devices, the one of the plurality of pool or spa slave
devices transmits a response to the master controller describing
at least one pool or spa device capability of the one of the
plurality of pool or spa slave devices.3

Second Issue
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “wherein the unique device
identifier includes a pool or spa device type identifier which uniquely
identifies the type of pool or spa device.” Independent claims 10 and 16
recite similar limitations commensurate in scope. The Examiner finds that
while Waters and McQueen do not teach or suggest this limitation, Lawson
and McQueen together teach the limitation “wherein the unique device
identifier includes a pool or spa device type identifier which uniquely
identifies the type of pool or spa device.” Final Act. 5 (citing McQueen as
teaching a “pool/spa environment” and citing Lawson ¶¶ 47, 57 for the
remainder of the limitation).
Appellant argues that Lawson’s teachings are directed to an industrial
controller, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
considered an industrial controller to be a pool or spa device as required by

3 Although the Examiner additionally references the teachings of Clark in
the Answer based on their incorporation by reference into McQueen, we do
not rely on Clark in sustaining the rejection before us, and we express no
opinion on whether the Examiner’s analysis with respect to Clark is correct.
Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

9
the claim. Appeal Br. 16–17. According to Appellant, because Lawson
does not describe any pool or spa, it cannot teach “a pool or spa device type
identifier which uniquely identifies the type of pool or spa device.” Appeal
Br. 17 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellant contends that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered an industrial
controller as taught by Lawson to be a pool or spa device. But that is not the
rejection that was made. The Examiner relies on McQueen as teaching the
use of a master controller in a pool/spa environment. The Examiner
introduces Lawson to show that it was known in the art for unique device
identifiers to be used for device type identification purposes in a device
discovery context. As before, Appellant’s arguments attack Lawson singly,
when the rejection was made based upon the combined teachings of Lawson
and McQueen. As such, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 16.
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from
which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.

Appeal 2019-005995
Application 14/213,172

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103(a) Waters, McQueen,
Lawson
1
2–4, 6–10,
12–16, 18–
23
103(a) Waters, McQueen,
Lawson, Baykai
2–4, 6–10,
12–16, 18–
23

5 103(a) Waters, McQueen,
Lawson, Mocanu
5
11, 17 103(a) Waters, McQueen,
Baykal, Lawson,
Kessler
11, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–23

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED