iControl Networks, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2021

2020002731 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
15/617,969 06/08/2017 Reza Raji 102005.024260 2923
71581 7590 07/20/2021
BakerHostetler / Comcast
Cira Centre, 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
LWIN, MAUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2021 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte REZA RAJI
____________

Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as iControl
Networks, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention pertains to a modular platform with an interface
device and a module configured to removably and physically couple with a
module connector, for various home management functions including home
security. See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4, 24–25. The module enables communication of
data over two different networks between a security system and a computing
device. See Spec. ¶ 34. The interface device includes (1) a housing with
one or more processors, (2) a display in communication with the processors,
(3) a network interface to communicate with the security system, and (4) the
module connector providing a physical connection interface in
communication with the processors. See Spec. ¶¶ 21, 56. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. An apparatus comprising:
an interface device comprising:
a housing comprising one or more processors;
a display in communication with the one or more
processors;
a network interface configured to enable
communication, via a first network, with a security
system; and
a module connector in communication with the
one or more processors, wherein the module connector is
configured as a physical connection interface for the
interface device; and
a module configured to removably and physically couple
with the module connector, wherein the module enables
communication, via a second network different from the first
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

3
network, of data between the security system and a computing
device.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bennett (US 7,349,682 B1; issued Mar. 25, 2008) and
Luebke (US 2006/0197660 A1; published Sept. 7, 2006). Final Act. 5–7.2

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONTENTIONS
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bennett
discloses, among other things, (1) an interface device, (2) a processor, (3) a
network interface in communication with a security system via a first
network, (4) a module connector and (5) a module configured to physically
couple with the module connector and enables communication via a second
network. Final Act. 5. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Bennett
lacks a display and that the module is configured to couple removably, the
Examiner cites Luebke as teaching these features in concluding that the
claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant argues the combination of cited art fails to teach or suggest
an interface device comprising a network interface and a module connector,
as claimed. Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, the cited system of
Bennett including many separately located devices does not disclose the
claimed apparatus which is “a single device.” See Appeal Br. 7–8.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January
3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 19, 2019
(supplemented October 3, 2019) (“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer
mailed December 23, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed February
24, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

4
Appellant further argues that the proposed combination of cited prior art
renders Bennett unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 3.
Appellant contends that the intended purpose of Bennett is for a transceiver
to provide internet connectivity via a connection to a base station. Appeal
Br. 5. Appellant adds that for Luebke’s fob to operate as a portable key and
configure other devices, the fob would have to be removed from a base
station. Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellant, since the combination of
references would turn Bennett’s transceiver into Luebke’s fob key, Bennett’s
transceiver would no longer be connected to Bennett’s switch, and thus, no
longer be able to communicate with the base station to connect to the
internet. See Appeal Br. 5.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Bennett and Luebke collectively would have taught or suggested (1) an
interface device comprising a network interface and a module connector;
and (2) a module configured to couple removably and physically with a
module connector?
II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether
the proposed combination would render Bennett inoperable for its intended
purpose.

Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

5
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on Bennett for
teaching the individual components of an interface device, a housing, a
display, a network interface, and a module connector is undisputed, as is the
Examiner’s reliance on Luebke for teaching a display and removable
features. Rather, as noted above, the dispute as to the cited teachings of
Bennett turns on whether Bennett’s home gateway system teaches the
claimed interface device comprising multiple components. Further, the
dispute as to the teachings of the combination turns solely on the Examiner’s
reliance on the proposed combination for teaching the recited module
configured to removably and physically couple with the module connector.
Therefore, we confine our discussion to (1) the teachings of Bennett as
applied to the claimed “interface device,” and (2) the combination for its
teachings of the claimed module, and then (3) the combination as whether it
renders Bennett unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Bennett’s home gateway system in teaching the claimed interface device and
individual components thereof. To the extent that Appellant suggests that
the claimed interface device, as recited, requires the components of a
housing, a display, a network interface, and a module connector to be all
within a single device (see Appeal Br. 7–9), we do not find that the claimed
interface device requires such a limited scope. Notably, the term “an
interface device” means “one or more interface devices” where, as here, the
indefinite article “an” is received in an open-ended claim containing the
transitional phrase “comprising.” See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[C]ourts ha[ve] repeated emphasized
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

6
that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of
‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase
‘comprising.’”). On the other hand, “[w]hen the claim language and
specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to
construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended ‘comprising’
claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accord In re
Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But while ‘a’ sometimes is
non-restrictive as to number, permitting the presence of more than one of the
objects following that indefinite article, context matters even as to whether
the word has that meaning.”).
We find no such restriction to the meaning of the indefinite article
“an” in the recited term “an interface device” here, particularly given the
Specification’s paragraph 87 and figure 5 teaching multiple devices coupled
to a gateway, where at least two of the devices, a security panel 256 and a
security touchscreen 257 are shown separately, yet are disclosed as having a
private coupling or connection segregated from any other network couplings
or connections, to the gateway. Moreover, as recited, the interface device
(as one or more interface devices) comprises a housing, a display, a network
interface, and a module connector. Accordingly, the claims do not require
each of the one or more interface devices comprise a housing, a display, a
network interface and a module connector, but rather that the one or more, as
a collective, comprise a housing, a display, a network interface and a module
connector.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection that relies
upon Figure 3 in disclosing Bennett’s home gateway system 70, as meeting
the claimed “an interface device.” See Final Act. 5. We reach this
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

7
conclusion without needing to consider the Examiner’s additional findings
from other figures and embodiments of Bennett as to their suggestions of
integration of Bennett’s home gateway system components into only one
device. See Ans. 6–7. Because the construction of the claimed “an interface
device comprising” is dispositive on the issue of Bennett’s Figure 3 and
associated description teaching these claim limitations, we also need not
reach Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s additional findings.
See Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 6–8.
Therefore, to the extent that Appellant contends that Bennett’s home
gateway system 70 does not teach an interface device (see Appeal Br. 7–8;
Reply Br. 6–7), such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claim.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Bennett and
Luebke for collectively teaching or suggesting a module configured to
couple removably and physically with the module connector.
Considering first the Examiner’s reliance on Bennett, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Bennett’s wireless transceiver does
not teach or suggest a module configured to at least physically couple (if not
removably couple), with the module connector, and enable communication,
via a second network different from the first network (see Reply Br. 2). The
Examiner finds that Bennett’s wireless transceiver (referred to in Bennett as
both 62 and 72) is connected to switch 76, and provides communication with
a base station over a network, which is different than the local area network
disclosed as connecting the home security automation and security system
84 to router 80. See Final Act. 5 (citing Bennett col. 2, ll. 31–34, 36–39; col.
3, ll. 65–67; col. 4, ll. 1–9; Fig. 3). Further, to the extent Appellant contends
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

8
that Bennett’s switch 76 does not teach or suggest the claimed module
connector configured as a physical connection interface (see Reply Br. 7),
we are not persuaded. Figure 3 shows lines connecting various components
such as processor 78 and router 80 to the switch 76, as contrasted by the
wireless symbols for wireless local loop 74, and the switch is disclosed as
“connected to” the processor 78 and 80 as well as the transceiver. See
Bennett Fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 31–33. Therefore, Bennett at least suggests a
physical connection interface as part of Bennett’s switch 76 to which
components including the transceiver are physically connected.
Therefore, on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance
on Bennett for teaching the claimed module enabling communication via a
second network different from the first network.
Turning to the Examiner’s findings regarding the deficiencies of
Bennett, the Examiner finds that Bennett’s wireless transceiver connected by
a line to switch 76 discloses the claimed module physically coupled with the
module connector, but relies on Luebke’s removable fob as providing
teachings of a module that is removably coupled. See Final Act. 5–6. That
is, the Examiner finds a modification to Bennett’s transceiver to make it
removably, as well as physically coupled, in view of the teachings of
Luebke’s fob which is removably coupled (see Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–5).
Contrary to Appellant’s contentions that Luebke’s fob is “never coupled
directly to a transceiver” (see Appeal Br. 3), Luebke discloses that the fob is
placed on the back of a radio frequency (RF) output device 12 for RF
communications, and in particular, the fob is mated with, or docked with the
device 12. See Luebke ¶¶ 65, 53, 73. Luebke further describes that the fob
can be removed from the docking or mated position and positioned
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

9
elsewhere at least for the purposes of displaying specific information. See
Luebke ¶ 73. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Luebke for the limited teachings of “removably” coupled, as well as the
display.
We also find unavailing Appellant’s contentions that the combination
of Bennett with Luebke renders Bennett unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s proposed modification
ostensibly replaces Bennett’s wireless transceiver with Luebke’s fob. See
Appeal Br. 5, (characterizing the combination as Bennett’s transceiver being
“turned into” a removable key fob); see also Reply Br. 6 (characterizing the
combination as Bennett’s transceiver being replaced with Luebke’s fob).
Appellant’s argument is also premised on bodily incorporating Luebke’s fob
in Bennett’s system. See Reply Br. 2 (suggesting the combination includes
Luebke’s fob as an interface to Bennett); see also Reply Br. 3 (suggesting
the combination adds Luebke’s [entire] fob to Bennett’s transceiver); Reply
Br. 3 (contending that one of ordinary skill in the art would add Lubke’s fob
not to Bennett’s transceiver, but as an additional component for configuring
sensors).
These contentions, however, are not germane to the Examiner’s
proposed combination. It is well settled that the test for obviousness is not
whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into
another cited reference as Appellant apparently suggests. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Nor does an obviousness determination
based on teachings from multiple references require an actual, physical
substitution of elements. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Rather, the
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

10
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Mouttet, 686 F.3d at
1333; see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2145(IV)
(9th ed. rev. 10. 2019 June 2020). Therefore, Appellant’s arguments that are
apparently premised on the Examiner’s rejection bodily incorporating
features from one reference into another are unavailing.
We reach this conclusion emphasizing that the Examiner merely
proposes to add Luebke’s fob features to Bennett’s wireless transceiver—not
replace the transceiver. We agree with the Examiner that the Appellant has
not persuasively argued why simply adding Luebke’s fob features to
Bennett’s wireless transceiver as the Examiner proposes would impact
Bennett’s transceiver’s functionality of communicating via a second network
or otherwise render Bennett’s system unsuitable for its intended purpose.
See Ans. 5. Appellant contends that if Bennett’s transceiver was no longer
[physically] connected to the switch shown in figure 3, then the transceiver
would no longer be able to access the Internet via the base station. See
Appeal Br. 5 (citing Bennett col. 2, ll. 1–5 as support for this contention);
Reply Br. 5. Not only does Appellant’s citation to Bennett fail to support
Appellant’s contention, but in Figure 1, Bennett depicts a wireless
connection to the base station as well as a wireless loop 26 to which the
home gateway system is connected, where that network is used to
communicate with the base station. See Bennett col. 1, ll. 66–67; col. 2, ll.
1–3; Fig. 1. Bennett’s Figure 3 is consistent with the teachings of Figure 1
as well, where Bennett’s wireless transceiver 72 is shown as wirelessly
communicating over wireless local loop connection 74 with base station 28.
See Bennett col. 2, ll. 26–34; Fig. 3. Therefore, we fail to see,nor has
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

11
Appellant shown, thatthe Examiner’s proposed combination, which merely
proposes to add Luebke’s fob-based functionality, namely the removable
coupling and display features, as an adjunct to Bennett’s tranceiver—not a
replacement—would destroy or otherwise render unsuitable communication
between the wireless transceiver and the base station. Accord Ans. 5 (noting
that Appellant’s argument fails to provide a reason that adding Luebke’s fob
functionality to Bennett’s system would not allow allow connectivity to the
second network).
Accordingly, without reaching the merits of Appellant’s suggestion
that the “only described purpose” of the transceiver of Bennett is equal to
the intended purpose of the invention of Bennett (see Appeal Br. 3–6), we do
not find that modifying Bennett’s wireless transceiver to be “removably
coupled” would prohibit it from communicating with the base station.
Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s proposed combination, nor do
we find that the combination would render Bennett inoperable for its
intended purpose even assuming that the intended purpose is as Appellant
suggests.
Lastly, Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that the
cited prior art does not also teach or suggest (1) determining a connection of
a module to the interface device, where the module is configured to
removably and physically couple to the interface device, and (2) controlling,
based on the module, communication, via a second network different from
the first network, of data between the security system and a computing
device as claimed with regard to claim 8. See Reply Br. 8. Appellant also
argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that the cited prior art does not
also teach or suggest a first module that enables communication, via a
Appeal 2020-002731
Application 15/617,969

12
second network different from the first network, of data between the security
system and a computing device with regard to claim 15. These arguments
were not raised in the Appeal Brief and are, therefore, waived as untimely.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Compare Appeal Br. 9 (omitting the specific
limitations from claims 8 and 15 that are said to be “similar, yet not
identical” to those of claim 1) with Reply Br. 8–9 (adding non-obviousness
arguments for specific limitations of claims 8 and 15 and emphasizing
certain limitations). Nor has good cause been shown to raise these new
arguments in the first instance in the Reply Brief.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–20 not argued separately with particularity.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Bennett,
Luebke
1–20

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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED