2020005890 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021)

May Patents Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 14, 2021

2020005890 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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. 16/053,834 08/03/2018 Yehuda BINDER BINDER-014-US8 2201 131926 7590 12/14/2021 May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov P.O.B 7230 Ramat-Gan, 5217102 ISRAEL EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2021 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 YEHUDA BINDER and BENJAMIN MAYTAL ____________ Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JUSTIN BUSCH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, 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 1-67. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 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 May Patents Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is an appliance including an AC connector, wireless transceivers, associated antennas, a processor, and a thermoelectric actuator, where the actuator is coupled to the processor and controlled by data received from different wireless networks. See Abstract; Spec. 13-14, 19, 34, 38, 59-60, 112-13, 120-21, 192; Figs. 5i, 5j, 6, 6c, 6d, 6g, 12, 12a. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An AC-powered temperature control appliance for use with first and second wireless networks, the appliance comprising: an AC connector for connecting to AC power source; a first antenna for communication over the first wireless network; a first wireless transceiver coupled to the first antenna for transmitting digital data to, and for receiving digital data from, the first wireless network; a second antenna for communication over the second wireless network; a second wireless transceiver coupled to the second antenna for transmitting digital data to, and for receiving digital data from, the second wireless network; a thermoelectric actuator that comprises a heater or cooler for affecting or changing the temperature of a solid, a liquid, or a gas object, the thermoelectric actuator is coupled to the AC connector for being powered from the AC power source; a software and software, the processor is transceiver for receiving a processor for executing the coupled to the first wireless first data from, and for transmitting second data to, the first wireless network, and the processor is coupled to the second wireless transceiver for receiving third data from, and for transmitting fourth data to, the second wireless network; and an enclosure housing the first and second wireless transceivers, the processor, and the thermoelectric actuator, Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 3 wherein the thermoelectric actuator is coupled to the processor to be controlled by the first data or by the third data. RELATED APPEALS On pages 2 and 3 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant informs us of seven related appeals in the following applications: (1) 13/733,634; (2) 15/657,1634; (3) 15/361,434; (4) 15/716,881; (5) 15/832,7872; (6) 15/992,219; and (7) 15/992,221. These appeals have been decided. See Ex parte Binder, Appeal 2018-007694 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2020), reh’g denied (PTAB May 18, 2020); Ex parte Binder, Appeal 2019-002056 (PTAB May 4, 2020); Ex parte Binder, Appeal 2019-000272 (PTAB June 10, 2020); Ex parte Binder, Appeal 2019-002059 (PTAB June 30, 2020); Ex parte Binder, Appeal 2020-004094 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2021); Ex parte Binder, Appeal 2020- 004104 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2021); Ex parte Binder, Appeal 2020-002710 (PTAB July 22, 2021). Notably, one of the prior art references at issue here, namely Wong, was also at issue in the ’2710 and ’4104 appeals. 4 Although Appellant incorrectly identifies the Application Number associated with Appeal No. 2019-002056 as 16/657,163 (Appeal Br. 2), we nonetheless present the correct Application Number 15/657,163 here for clarity and treat Appellant’s error in this regard as harmless. 2 Although Appellant incorrectly identifies the Application Number associated with Appeal No. 2020-004094 as 15/716,881 (Appeal Br. 2), we nonetheless present the correct Application Number 15/832,787 here for clarity and treat Appellant’s error in this regard as harmless. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 4 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Final Act. 19.3 The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-29, 39, 40, 42-45, 48- 53, 56-58, 60-62, and 64-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong (US 2011/0298301 A1; published Dec. 8, 2011) and Rawski (US 2010/0281884 A1; Nov. 11, 2010). Final Act. 20-30. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 41, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong, Rawski, and Discenzo (US 8,615,374 B1; issued Dec. 24, 2013). Final Act. 31-32. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong, Rawski, and Skrepcinski (US 2012/0190292 A1; published July 26, 2012). Final Act. 32. The Examiner rejected claims 30-33, 35-38, 46, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong, Rawski, and Holland (US 2010/0187832 A1; published July 29, 2010). Final Act. 32-35. The Examiner rejected claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong, Rawski, and Franx (US 4,472,656; issued Sept. 18, 1984). Final Act. 35-36. The Examiner rejected claim 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong, Rawski, and Richmond (US 2008/0291036 A1; published Nov. 27, 2008). Final Act. 36. 3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June 5, 2020 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed June 14, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 7, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed August 16, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 5 The Examiner rejected claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong, Rawski, and Siann (US 2009/0189981 A1; published July 30, 2009). Final Act. 36-37. The Examiner rejected claim 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong, Rawski, and Kao (US 8,244,405 B2; issued Aug. 14, 2012). Final Act. 37. The Examiner rejected claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wong, Rawski, Holland, and Discenzo. Final Act. 37-38. THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION Because Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 14 (see Appeal Br. 1-34; Final Act. 19; Reply Br. 1-12), we summarily sustain this rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. rev. 10.2019 June 2020) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”). THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WONG AND RAWSKI Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wong discloses a temperature control appliance including a first wireless transceiver (Wi-Fi Transmit and Receive Section 1006) coupled to a first antenna (Wi-Fi Antenna Option Section 1008) for transmitting and receiving digital data to and from a first wireless network. See Final Act. 20. The Examiner also finds that Wong discloses a second wireless transceiver Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 6 because a Wi-Fi sensor module 206 can include a second sensor that includes a second RF communication system. Final Act. 20. The Examiner further finds that Wong discloses (1) an actuator coupled to an AC connector; (2) a processor coupled to the wireless transceivers for transmitting and receiving data via the respective wireless networks as claimed; and (3) an enclosure housing the transceivers, processor, and actuator, where the enclosure is either (a) a building housing the modules, or (b) a module platform housing the wireless sensors and actuator, where each sensor includes a processor and RF communication system. See Final Act. 20-21. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Wong lacks the recited thermoelectric actuator, the Examiner cites Rawski as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 21. Appellant argues that Wong does not teach or suggest two wireless interfaces, but rather a single Wi-Fi network where each wireless sensor includes a single wireless interface. Appeal Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2. Appellant adds that not only are Wong and Rawski non-analogous art, the Examiner’s proposed combination changes Wong’s principle of operation and lacks motivation why an actuator would be included in Wong’s wireless sensors as proposed, much less a thermoelectric actuator as claimed. Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant argues other recited limitations summarized below. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Wong and Rawski collectively would have taught or suggested a temperature control appliance comprising: Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 7 (1) an enclosure housing (a) a first wireless transceiver; (b) a second wireless transceiver; (c) the recited processor; and (d) the recited thermoelectric actuator, where (i) the first wireless transceiver is coupled to a first antenna for transmitting and receiving digital data over a first wireless network, and (ii) the second wireless transceiver is coupled to a second antenna for transmitting and receiving digital data over a second wireless network as recited in claim 1? (2) the thermoelectric actuator is coupled to the processor to be controlled by the first and third data recited in claim 2? (3) the appliance is further operative for temperature control of environment, air, gas, food, liquid, or water in a home, commercial, or industrial environment as recited in claim 3? (4) the heater (a) uses radiative heating; (b) comprises, or consists of, a convector using convection; or (c) comprises, or consists of, a forced convection heater as recited in claim 6? (5) the thermoelectric actuator comprises, or consists of, (a) a heating or cooling heat pump, or (b) a cooler based on an electric motor-based compressor for driving a refrigeration cycle as recited in claim 7? (6) the thermoelectric actuator comprises, or consists of, a radiative heater or an induction-based heater as recited in claim 10? (7) an electrically actuated switch coupled (a) to be controlled by the processor, and (b) for switching AC power from the AC connector to the thermoelectric actuator as recited in claim 12? (8) the electrically actuated switch is coupled to the first or second wireless transceiver for being respectively activated responsive to the first or third data as recited in claim 13? Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 8 (9) a sensor for producing sensor data responsive to a sensed phenomenon, where (a) the sensor is coupled to the processor, and (b) the second or fourth data is responsive to the sensor data as recited in claim 18? (10)(a) the second wireless network is a cellular telephone network; (b) the second antenna is a cellular antenna; and (c) the second wireless transceiver is a cellular modem as recited in claim 42? (11) the thermoelectric actuator is activated or controlled responsive to the sensor data as recited in claim 53? (12) a single component consists of, or is part of, the sensor and thermoelectric actuator as recited in claim 56? (13) the sensor is a thermoelectric sensor that responds to a temperature or to a temperature gradient of an object using conduction, convection, or radiation, and where the thermoelectric sensor consists of, or comprises, (1) a Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) thermistor; (2) a Negative Temperature Coefficient (NTC) thermistor, (3) a thermocouple; (4) a quartz crystal; or (5) a Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD) as recited in claim 57? 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? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5, 9, 39, 40, 43-45, 48-52, 58, 60-62, and 64-66 As noted above, a key issue on appeal turns on whether the cited prior art teaches or suggests a temperature control appliance with an enclosure housing (1) two wireless transceivers that each transmit and receive digital Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 9 data to and from respective wireless networks; (2) a processor; and (3) a thermoelectric actuator. Our emphasis underscores that the recited appliance communicates with different wireless networks via transceivers associated with each network, where the transceivers, processor, and actuator are housed within the appliance’s enclosure. Turning to the rejection, the Examiner relies on Wong for teaching many of the appliance’s recited elements, including an enclosure housing the transceivers, processor, and actuator. See Final Act. 20-21. The Examiner cites Rawski for a very limited purpose, namely merely to show that thermoelectric actuators are known in the art, and it would have been obvious to use a thermoelectric actuator for Wong’s actuator. See Final Act. 21. Although the Examiner finds that Wong teaches nearly all of the recited appliance’s elements, including an enclosure housing the transceivers, processor, and actuator, the Examiner does not articulate a specific mapping of the recited elements to corresponding elements in that reference. See Final Act. 20-21. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes the claim limitations and cites various paragraphs and figures from Wong with little explanation or analysis regarding what specific elements or features in Wong correspond to each recited element. See id. These omissions and ambiguities in the Examiner’s findings make our task of discerning the Examiner’s mapping of the key recited elements at issue in this appeal all the more difficult. Nevertheless, in assessing the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the key disputed limitations in claim 1, namely those in connection with two wireless interfaces that Appellant contends are lacking Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 10 in Wong (see Appeal Br. 6-8), we begin by construing key terms in the claim. First, the claim is directed to an appliance, where the appliance comprises, among other things, an enclosure housing two wireless transceivers, a processor, and a thermoelectric actuator. Our emphasis underscores that the appliance’s enclosure houses these elements under the terms of claim 1. Therefore, to equate the recited enclosure to a building as the Examiner apparently proposes (see Final Act. 21; Ans. 5) is problematic on this record because the recited enclosure is part of the claimed appliance. To be sure, Appellant’s Specification states that a building is an enclosure. See Spec. 181 (referring to “buildings or other enclosures”) (emphasis added). But in the context of the claimed invention, the recited enclosure is part of the appliance and, therefore, cannot be a building. In interpreting the term “appliance,” we first note that the Specification does not define the term despite being replete with concrete definitions of other terms whose clear and unambiguous definitions leave no doubt as their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 3-4, 9, 75, 81, 114, 168, 182-83, 192-93, 196-201, 208 (defining various terms explicitly). The Specification does, however, refer to various types of appliances, namely home, commercial, and industrial appliances, and gives examples of various home appliances including, among other things, heaters, clothes dryers, dishwashers, and air conditioners. See Spec. 19, 59-60. Although this description informs our understanding of the recited appliance, it is not limiting. Nor will we import that description into the claim. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 11 we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments. . . . [C]laims may embrace different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Notably, the term “appliance” is broad and covers many different devices or machines under the term’s plain meaning, namely “a device or machine for performing a specific task, esp[ecially] one that is worked mechanically or by electricity . . . .” Appliance, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH 67 (3d College ed. 1993). Our emphasis, however, underscores that an appliance is a device or machine under its plain meaning and, therefore, cannot be a building under any reasonable interpretation of the term despite the Examiner’s finding to the contrary. See Final Act. 21; Ans. 5. Nevertheless, we deem the Examiner’s error in this regard as harmless because the Examiner alternatively equates the recited enclosure to a housing associated with Wong’s wireless sensor (see Ans. 5)-a reasonable finding on this record. As shown in Wong’s Figure 2, a system that monitors a datacenter 202 includes wireless sensors 206, which are also called Wi-Fi sensor modules 206. See Wong ¶ 62. The sensor modules act as the senses needed inside the datacenter to manage and report failed operations in the datacenter. Id. In one embodiment, the sensor modules can be configured as wireless sensors and/or wireless actuators, and can monitor a variety of parameters such as temperature. Id. ¶ 63. This monitored information from the sensor modules is used to configure, modify settings, and administrate the datacenter manually and/or automatically. Id. For example, the Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 12 datacenter cooling equipment can be controlled remotely to operate more efficiently and reduce electrical power consumption, thus reducing operating cost. See id. One form of sensor module is an AC power meter Wi-Fi sensor module 700, 720 shown in Wong’s Figures 7A and 7B. Wong ¶ 86. As shown in those figures, the modules include (1) a housing with an inlet plug for connecting to an AC power source and receptacle for receiving an AC plug connected to load equipment; (2) an AC power measurement module; and (3) a Wi-Fi communication module. Wong ¶ 86. Wong’s Figure 10 shows a functional block diagram of the AC power meter Wi-Fi sensor modules 700, 720. Wong ¶ 95. As shown in that figure, the sensor modules each comprise, among other things, (1) processor 1002; and (2) a radio communications system comprising (a) Wi-Fi transmit/receive section 1006 that is also called a transceiver, and (b) Wi-Fi antenna option section 1008. Id. As Wong’s paragraph 107 explains, processor 1002 can monitor and switch the AC power outlet portion of the sensor module in an ON or OFF state based on digital commands sent wirelessly to the sensor modules via Wi-Fi. Based on this functionality, Wong at least suggests an appliance, namely an AC power meter Wi-Fi sensor module, comprising an enclosure that houses, among other things, a transceiver, processor, and actuator. See Wong Figs. 7A-B, 10. Given its structure and function, Wong’s sensor module comports with the plain meaning of the term “appliance” noted previously, namely a device or machine for performing a specific task, especially one that is worked mechanically or by electricity. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 13 Although Wong does not state explicitly that this sensor module enclosure houses two transceivers as claimed, Wong nonetheless at least suggests that providing multiple transceivers and associated antennas in connection with a single sensor module would have been at least an obvious variation. In paragraph 68, Wong notes that each sensor module may be (1) associated with one or more nearby Wi-Fi access points 208 in an existing IEEE 802.11 local wireless network infrastructure; (2) assigned one or more Internet Protocol addresses; (3) communicate and be managed by one or more remote Wi-Fi compatible dedicated servers or server applications running on one or more computers. Accord Ans. 5 (citing Wong ¶ 68 and noting that “[e]ach sensor has its own connection to the wireless network with one or more nearby Wi-Fi access points”) (emphasis added). Our emphasis underscores that by associating each sensor module with plural Wi-Fi access points, providing a dedicated transceiver and antenna to enable the sensor module to communicate with each respective access point would have been at least an obvious variation. Moreover, providing these dedicated transceivers in a sensor module enclosure would likewise have been obvious, particularly given the enclosure’s transceiver- housing function noted previously. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise, or that doing so would have somehow been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, nothing in the claim precludes the wireless communication path associated with each respective access point from Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 14 constituting a respective wireless network as claimed. Because a sensor module can communicate with at least two access points as noted in Wong’s paragraph 68, the sensor module can therefore communicate with at least two wireless networks, where each network is associated with a respective access point. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise (see Appeal Br. 7), such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s combining Wong’s teachings with those of Rawski despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3. First, as noted previously, the Examiner finds that Wong’s appliance includes an actuator, but acknowledges that this appliance-based actuator is not a thermoelectric actuator. See Final Act. 20- 21. To cure this deficiency, the Examiner cites Rawski for a very limited purpose, namely merely to show that thermoelectric actuators are known in the art, and it would have been obvious to use a thermoelectric actuator for Wong’s actuator “to provide a more efficient way of heating and cooling in Wong’s system.” See Final Act. 21. We see no error in this reasoning, particularly since a key application of Wong’s appliance and its actuator is to control temperature. See Wong ¶ 43 (noting that the disclosed wireless sensors measure or sense temperature or heat); ¶ 50 (noting the sensor modules’ temperature monitoring and reporting capabilities are used to adjust cooling or heating solutions to maintain a desired temperature for the datacenter); ¶ 63 (noting that the Wi-Fi sensor modules 206 can monitor air inlet temperature, and datacenter cooling equipment can be controlled remotely to operate on a more efficient basis); ¶¶ 81, 105 (referring to the sensor module’s temperature sense system and additional ability to sense heat); ¶ 161 (noting Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 15 that the disclosed control method can be used to control temperature or heat); Figs. 10-11 (showing the sensor module’s temperature sense system 1110, 1114). Another key function of Wong’s sensor module and its processor 1002 is the ability to monitor and switch AC power on and off. See Wong ¶ 107. As is known in the art, because electronic components, such as processors, generate heat during operation that can damage the components, various remedies, such as heat sinks and fans, are used to mitigate these deleterious thermal effects. See Heat Sink, Bryan Pfaffenberger, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COMPUTER DICTIONARY 171 (10th ed. 2003) (“Webster’s Computer Dictionary”) (defining “heat sink” as “[a] finned metal assembly that sits on top of a hot component, such as a microprocessor, and draws heat out of it, preventing it from overheating. Microprocessors require both a heat sink and CPU fan to keep cool.”). Given this requirement, the Examiner’s proposal to include a thermoelectric actuator, such as that in Rawski, in connection with Wong’s processor-based actuator has a rational basis on this record. We reach this conclusion noting that a key function of Rawski’s thermoelectric management unit 10 on which the Examiner relies is not only cooling electrical enclosures, such as electrical enclosure 12 in Figure 7A, but also cooling other enclosed spaces. See Rawski ¶¶ 2, 29. Given this enclosure cooling function, and because Wong’s processor- based actuator is housed within an enclosure as noted previously, providing a thermoelectric actuator, such as that disclosed by Rawski, in Wong’s appliance enclosure to cool the electronic components, such as processor 1002, to avoid heat-related damage, uses prior art elements predictably Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 16 according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). To the extent Appellant contends otherwise, or that providing a thermoelectric actuator in connection with Wong’s appliance would have somehow been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. Nor do we see error in the Examiner’s articulated rationale to combine the references, at least to the extent that cooling the electronic components in Wong’s appliance enclosure by using a thermoelectric actuator as noted above would be more efficient than other cooling techniques, such as those involving compressors. See Rawski ¶ 2 (explaining that because thermoelectric devices convert electric current into heating or cooling based on the Peltier effect, they are generally much more efficient than compressors). Accord Ans. 7-8 (citing Rawski ¶ 2). Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s proposed combination somehow changes Wong’s operating principle that is based on devices that sense, monitor, and transmit data (Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3) is unavailing. Using a thermoelectric actuator, such as that in Rawski, to cool the electronic components inside Wong’s appliance enclosure would not change the components’ disclosed functionality, including sensing, monitoring, and transmitting data, as Appellant contends. Rather, this modification merely adds enclosure cooling functionality to Wong’s system as an adjunct-an obvious enhancement yielding a predictable result, namely protecting the electronic components, such as processor 1002, inside that enclosure from overheating. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 17 We also find Wong and Rawski are analogous art despite Appellant’s contentions to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3. Prior art is analogous if it is (1) from the same field of endeavor regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). That is, contrary to Appellant’s suggestion (see Appeal Br. 8), the analogous art test does not ask whether the prior art references are analogous to each other, but rather asks whether the prior art references are analogous to the claimed subject matter. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325; see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, both Wong and Rawski are in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s invention, namely environment control. Accord Ex parte Binder, Appeal 2020-004104, at 58 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2021) (noting Wong’s environment control field of endeavor). Moreover, both Wong and Rawski are at least reasonably pertinent to Appellant’s problem of optimizing environment control networks by using sensors communicating over wireless networks. See Spec. 15, 75-76. Rawski involves controlling thermoelectric devices to heat or cool enclosures or other enclosed spaces. See Rawski Abstract; ¶¶ 2, 29, 96-98. Wong pertains to (1) measuring AC current usage of a load device, and (2) transmitting values based on the measurements over a Wi-Fi network to configure, modify, and administer energy settings for more efficient operations. See Wong ¶¶ 14, 42. Therefore, even assuming, without deciding, that Wong uses multiple sensors in a datacenter building, and Rawski thermally manages a single enclosure as Appellant contends (see Appeal Br. 8), we still find their Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 18 respective disclosures at least reasonably pertinent to Appellant’s problem as noted above. Nor does our analysis explaining why Wong and Rawski are analogous art constitute a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) despite Appellant’s contentions to the contrary. See Reply Br. 3. In reaching our conclusion in this regard, we do not change the thrust of the rejection that, as noted above, is based on Wong’s and Rawski’s respective teachings, but rather merely apply the law, namely that articulated in the cases cited above, to the facts at issue here. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325; see also Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87; In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-03 (CCPA 1976). We, therefore, decline to enter a new ground of rejection. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 5, 9, 39, 40, 43-45, 48-52, 58, 60-62, and 64-66 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 2 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 reciting that the thermoelectric actuator is coupled to the processor to be controlled by the first and third data. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4), we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Wong and Rawski for collectively at least suggesting the recited limitations. See Final Act. 21; Ans. 8 (citing Wong ¶¶ 68, 94-95, 105, 107; Rawski Fig. 10A). As noted previously, nothing in the claim precludes the wireless communication path associated with each respective access point in Wong from constituting a respective wireless network as claimed. That is, because Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 19 a sensor module can communicate with at least two access points as noted in Wong’s paragraph 68, the sensor module can therefore communicate with at least two wireless networks, where each network is associated with a respective access point. Given this multi-network communication capability, Wong at least suggests controlling a sensor module’s associated actuator via data received from those respective networks. See Wong ¶¶ 68, 95. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise (see Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4), such arguments are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. To the extent Appellant contends that there is no teaching or suggestion to control a thermoelectric actuator inside an appliance enclosure (see Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4), we disagree. As noted previously, using a thermoelectric actuator, such as that in Rawski, to cool the electronic components inside Wong’s appliance enclosure under the proposed combination merely adds enclosure cooling functionality to Wong’s system as an adjunct-an obvious enhancement yielding a predictable result, namely protecting the electronic components, such as processor 1002, inside that enclosure from overheating. Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2. Claims 3 and 4 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 reciting that the appliance is further operative for temperature control of environment, air, Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 20 gas, food, liquid, or water in a home, commercial, or industrial environment. Our emphasis on the word “or” underscores that the associated elements are recited in the alternative and, therefore, the cited prior art need only disclose one element in each of the respective sets of alternatives to satisfy the claim. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4), we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Wong and Rawski for collectively at least suggesting the recited limitations. See Final Act. 21; Ans. 8-9 (citing Wong ¶¶ 73, 89). Leaving aside the fact that the Examiner’s rejection is not based on Wong alone, but rather Wong and Rawski collectively as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 9), Wong is replete with references to using sensor modules in environments including homes or industrial buildings. See, e.g., Wong ¶ 73 (listing various sensor module applications including industrial field monitoring and response, building automation, and home automation); ¶ 89 (noting that a sensor module can operate in home or industrial environments). Given these home and industrial applications of sensor modules, as well as their temperature control capabilities noted previously, Wong at least suggests controlling temperature of at least an environment in a home or industrial environment as claimed. Appellant’s arguments are, therefore, unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3, and claim 4 not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 21 Claim 6 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 that recites the thermoelectric actuator uses conduction, convection, thermal radiation, or a transfer of energy by phase changes. Claim 6 adds that the heater (1) uses radiative heating; (2) comprises, or consists of, a convector using convection; or (3) comprises, or consists of, a forced convection heater. Our emphases underscores several significant aspects of the claim. First, the term “the heater” has no antecedent basis in claim 6 or claims 5 and 1 from which claim 6 depend. Although the Examiner did not reject claim 6 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph despite this inconsistency, we nonetheless leave that question for the Examiner to reconsider in light of this decision. Second, our emphasis on the word “or” underscores that the associated elements are recited in the alternative and, therefore, the cited prior art need only disclose one of the recited alternatives to satisfy the claim. Nevertheless, despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4-5), we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Rawski’s paragraphs 31 and 36 at least suggest every recited alternative, namely (1) radiative heating; (2) a convector; and (3) a forced convection heater. See Final Act. 22; Ans. 9. In reaching this conclusion, we note that Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that Rawski’s heat sinks discussed in paragraph 31 and shown in Figure 3 inherently dissipate heat and, therefore, radiate heat at least to that extent. See Ans. 9; accord Webster’s Computer Dictionary, at 171 (defining “heat sink” as “[a] finned metal Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 22 assembly that sits on top of a hot component, such as a microprocessor, and draws heat out of it, preventing it from overheating.”) (emphasis added). We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that a heat sink is typically a convection heat transfer device as Appellant contends. See Reply Br. 4. Not only is Appellant’s contention in this regard unsubstantiated, it does not foreclose the possibility that heat sinks can transfer heat via radiation despite their alleged “typical” use as convection heating devices. In short, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that Rawski’s heat sinks radiate heat to the surrounding environment at least via their fins in Figure 3. Nor does Appellant persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance Rawski’s paragraph 36 for at least suggesting the recited convector and forced convention heater alternatives, particularly given that paragraph’s discussion of fans 34, 36 used in connection with the enclosure. Given these radiative and conductive heating aspects of Rawski’s thermoelectric actuators, providing such techniques in connection with Wong’s system as the Examiner proposes uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That Rawski’s thermoelectric actuator can be used for cooling does not preclude its radiative and convective heating properties, at least with respect to radiating unwanted heat to the environment via the heat sinks. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 23 Claim 7 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 reciting that the thermoelectric actuator comprises, or consists of, (1) a heating or cooling heat pump, or (2) a cooler based on an electric motor-based compressor for driving a refrigeration cycle. Our emphasis on the word “or” underscores that the associated elements are recited in the alternative and, therefore, the cited prior art need only disclose one of the recited alternatives (1) or (2) to satisfy the claim. Moreover, for alternative (1), the prior art need only disclose one recited heat pump alternative, namely either a heating or cooling heat pump. In the rejection, the Examiner does not say which recited alternative is taught or suggested by the cited prior art, much less identify what specific elements or features in the prior art correspond to each recited element. See Final Act. 22. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes the claim language and cites Rawski’s paragraph 31 with no explanation or analysis. See id. These omissions and ambiguities in the Examiner’s findings make our task of discerning the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the key recited elements at issue in this appeal all the more difficult. Nevertheless, the Examiner explains in the Answer that because Rawski’s thermoelectric element heats or cools using the Peltier effect, it is therefore a thermoelectric or Peltier heat pump. See Ans. 10. We, therefore, presume the Examiner rejects claim 7 based solely on the first recited alternative where the thermoelectric actuator is a heating or cooling heat pump. To assess the Examiner’s finding in this regard, we first construe the term “heat pump.” The Specification explains that a thermoelectric actuator Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 24 may be a heating or cooling heat pump and, notably, may be a solid-state heat pump device based on the Peltier effect. Spec. 34, 54. The Specification defines the term “heat pump” quite broadly, namely “a machine or device that transfers thermal energy from one location, called the ‘source,’ which is at a lower temperature, to another location called the ‘sink’ or ‘heat sink’, which is at a higher temperature.” Spec. 128. The Specification explains that a thermoelectric actuator can be a thermoelectric cooler or heater (or a heat pump) based on the Peltier effect. Spec. 129. According to the Specification, when direct current is applied to a solid-state active heat pump device-which includes a Peltier device and thermoelectric cooler-heat is moved from one side to the other creating a temperature difference between the two sides, thus enabling the device to be used for heating or cooling. Id. The import of this discussion is that a Peltier device is a solid-state heat pump device that heats or cools and, therefore, is a heating or cooling heat pump as claimed. The Examiner’s finding, then, that Rawski’s thermoelectric element is a heat pump because it heats or cools using the Peltier effect (Ans. 10) is consistent with Appellant’s description of thermoelectric heat pumps in the Specification and, therefore, reasonable. We reach this conclusion even if Rawski does not use the term “heat pump” explicitly as Appellant contends (see Appeal Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5), for nothing in the claim precludes Rawski’s devices that use the Peltier effect from constituting a heat pump as claimed. Appellant’s arguments are, therefore, unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s articulated rationale to combine the references, at least to the extent that cooling the electronic Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 25 components in Wong’s appliance enclosure by using a thermoelectric actuator comprising a heat pump as noted above would be more efficient than other cooling techniques, such as those involving compressors. See Rawski ¶ 2 (explaining that because thermoelectric devices convert electric current into heating or cooling based on the Peltier effect, they are generally much more efficient than compressors). Accord Ans. 10 (referring to a previous response that cites Rawski ¶ 2). Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7. Claim 10 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 reciting the thermoelectric actuator comprises, or consists of, a (1) radiative heater, or (2) an induction-based heater. Our emphasis on the word “or” underscores that the associated elements are recited in the alternative and, therefore, the cited prior art need only disclose one of the recited alternatives (1) or (2) to satisfy the claim. In the rejection, the Examiner does not say which recited alternative is taught or suggested by the prior art, much less identify what specific elements or features in Wong correspond to each recited element. See Final Act. 23. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes the claim language and cites Rawski’s paragraph 31 with no explanation or analysis. See id. These omissions and ambiguities in the Examiner’s findings make our task of Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 26 discerning the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the key recited elements at issue in this appeal all the more difficult. Nevertheless, the Examiner explains in the Answer that Rawski teaches a radiator as explained in connection with the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 6. See Ans. 10. Given the Examiner’s reliance on Rawski’s radiator as emphasized above, we presume the Examiner intends to map that structure to the recited radiative heater alternative. On this record, we see no error in that mapping despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 6. We reach this conclusion noting that Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding made with respect to claim 6 (and also applicable here) that Rawski’s heat sinks discussed in paragraph 31 and shown in Figure 3 inherently dissipate heat and, therefore, radiate heat at least to that extent. See Ans. 9; accord Webster’s Computer Dictionary, at 171 (defining “heat sink” as “[a] finned metal assembly that sits on top of a hot component, such as a microprocessor, and draws heat out of it, preventing it from overheating.”) (emphasis added). In short, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that Rawski’s heat sinks radiate heat to the surrounding environment at least via their fins in Figure 3 and, therefore, is a “radiative heater” at least to that extent. Given these radiative heating aspects of Rawski’s thermoelectric actuators, providing such techniques in connection with Wong’s system as the Examiner proposes uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That Rawski’s thermoelectric actuator can be used for cooling does not Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 27 preclude its radiative heating properties, at least with respect to radiating unwanted heat to the environment via the heat sinks. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s articulated rationale to combine the references, at least to the extent that cooling the electronic components in Wong’s appliance enclosure by using a thermoelectric actuator comprising a radiative heater as noted above would be more efficient than other heating or cooling techniques, such as those involving compressors. See Rawski ¶ 2 (explaining that because thermoelectric devices convert electric current into heating or cooling based on the Peltier effect, they are generally much more efficient than compressors). Accord Ans. 10 (referring to a previous response that cites Rawski ¶ 2). Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10. Claims 12 and 14-17 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 reciting an electrically actuated switch coupled (1) to be controlled by the processor, and (2) for switching AC power from the AC connector to the thermoelectric actuator. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Wong’s paragraph 107 for at least suggesting the recited switch. See Final Act. 23; Ans. 10-11. As Wong explains, processor 1002 can switch the AC power outlet portion of the AC power meter Wi-Fi sensor module in an ON or OFF state based on Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 28 digital commands sent to the sensor modules wirelessly via Wi-Fi. Wong ¶ 107. Given this ability to switch the sensor module’s AC power outlet portion, Wong at least suggests switching AC power from an AC connector to the module’s actuator. That this switching can also switch a load connected to the module as noted in Wong’s paragraph 107 does not change our conclusion despite Appellant’s argument to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 16-17. Because the scope and breadth of the claim does not preclude this sensor module switching functionality, Appellant’s arguments are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See Appeal Br. 16-19; Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s contention that Wong teaches only a single command received from a single wireless network (Appeal Br. 17) is likewise unavailing. As noted previously, nothing in the claim precludes the wireless communication path associated with each respective access point in Wong from constituting a respective wireless network as claimed. See Wong ¶ 68. Because a sensor module can communicate with at least two access points as noted in Wong’s paragraph 68, the sensor module can therefore communicate with at least two wireless networks, where each network is associated with a respective access point. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise (see Appeal Br. 17), such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. To the extent Appellant contends that Wong is deficient because it lacks a thermoelectric actuator (see Appeal Br. 16-19; Reply Br. 6), the Examiner cites Rawski-not Wong-for teaching that feature as noted previously and by the Examiner. See Ans. 10-11. In short, Appellant’s Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 29 arguments regarding Wong’s and Rawski’s individual shortcomings in this regard do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s articulated rationale to combine the references, at least to the extent that cooling the electronic components in Wong’s appliance enclosure by using a thermoelectric actuator as noted above would be more efficient than other heating or cooling techniques, such as those involving compressors. See Rawski ¶ 2 (explaining that because thermoelectric devices convert electric current into heating or cooling based on the Peltier effect, they are generally much more efficient than compressors). Accord Ans. 11 (referring to a previous response that cites Rawski ¶ 2). Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 6) the rationale to combine the references is relevant to the recited switching functionality at least to the extent that it pertains to a more efficient actuator with AC power switching capabilities as noted above. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12, and claims 14-17 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 13 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 reciting that the electrically actuated switch is coupled to the first or second wireless transceiver for being respectively activated responsive to the first or third Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 30 data. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 7), we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Wong’s paragraph 107 for at least suggesting the recited limitations for the reasons noted previously in connection with claim 12 from which claim 13 depends and the reasons indicated by the Examiner. See Ans. 11. As Wong explains, processor 1002 can switch the AC power outlet portion of the AC power meter Wi-Fi sensor module in an ON or OFF state based on digital commands sent to the sensor modules wirelessly via Wi-Fi. Wong ¶ 107. Given this ability to switch the sensor module’s AC power outlet portion, Wong at least suggests switching AC power from an AC connector to the module’s actuator. That this switching can also switch a load connected to the module as noted in Wong’s paragraph 107 does not change our conclusion despite Appellant’s argument to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 16-17. Because the claim’s scope and breadth does not preclude this sensor module switching functionality, Appellant’s arguments are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See Appeal Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 7. Appellant’s contention that Wong teaches only a single command received from a single wireless network (Appeal Br. 20) is likewise unavailing. As noted previously, nothing in the claim precludes the wireless communication path associated with each respective access point in Wong from constituting a respective wireless network with associated transceivers as claimed. See Wong ¶ 68. Because a sensor module can communicate with at least two access points as noted in Wong’s paragraph 68, the sensor module can therefore communicate with at least two wireless networks, Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 31 where each network and its associated transceiver is associated with a respective access point. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise (see Appeal Br. 20), such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13. Claims 18-29 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 reciting a sensor for producing sensor data responsive to a sensed phenomenon, where (1) the sensor is coupled to the processor, and (2) the second or fourth data is responsive to the sensor data. In the rejection, the Examiner does not say what specific elements or features in Wong correspond to each recited element. See Final Act. 24. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes the claim language and cites Wong’s paragraphs 94 to 96, 104, and 107 with no explanation or analysis. See id. These omissions and ambiguities in the Examiner’s findings make our task of discerning the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the key recited elements at issue in this appeal all the more difficult. Nevertheless, the Examiner explains in the Answer that each of Wong’s sensors has its own connection to one or more access points associated with respective wireless networks and associated data, namely second or fourth data, respectively. See Ans. 11 (citing Wong ¶¶ 68, 95). We see no error in these findings despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 7. As noted previously, nothing in the claim precludes the wireless communication path associated with each Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 32 respective access point in Wong from constituting a respective wireless network with associated second and fourth data as claimed. See Wong ¶ 68. Because a sensor module can communicate with at least two access points as noted in Wong’s paragraph 68, the sensor module can therefore communicate with at least two wireless networks, where each network and its associated transceiver and communicated data is associated with a respective access point. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise (see Appeal Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 7), such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18, and claims 19-29 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 42 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 42. Claim 42 depends from claim 39 that recites (1) the first wireless network is a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN); (2) the first antenna is a WLAN antenna; and (3) the first wireless transceiver is a WLAN modem. Claim 42 adds that (1) the second wireless network is a cellular telephone network; (2) the second antenna is a cellular antenna; and (3) the second wireless transceiver is a cellular modem. In rejecting claim 39 from which claim 42 depends, the Examiner cites Wong’s paragraph 42 for teaching the recited WLAN-based limitations. Final Act. 26. These findings are undisputed. In rejecting claim 42, the Examiner cites Wong’s paragraphs 168 and 170 for teaching the recited cellular-based limitations. Final Act. 27. The Examiner, however, does not say what specific elements or features in Wong Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 33 correspond to the recited cellular-based features. See id. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes the claim language and cites Wong’s paragraphs 168 and 170 with no explanation or analysis. See id. These omissions and ambiguities in the Examiner’s findings make our task of discerning the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the key recited elements at issue in this appeal all the more difficult. In the Answer, however, the Examiner cites different disclosure from Wong, namely paragraphs 49 and 79 and Figure 5, for teaching the recited cellular-based limitations in claim 42. See Ans. 11-12. Despite this inconsistency in the Examiner’s articulated findings, we nonetheless see no harmful error in the Examiner’s reliance on Wong for at least suggesting that using cellular-based wireless communication in connection with the second wireless network would have been at least an obvious variation. In paragraph 168, Wong explains that temperature can be monitored continuously with respect to thresholds and “policing” criteria set by datacenter management. Violations can result in alerts that are issued to not only laptop computers, but also cell phones. Wong ¶ 168. Wong’s paragraph 170 refers to similar cellular-based alert functionality. Although this cellular-based communication is for alerts generated responsive to the sensor modules indicating excessive or overly-low temperatures and, therefore, are not transmissions from the sensor modules themselves, using cellular communications in lieu of WLAN-based communications in connection with the second wireless network and its associated transceiver and antenna as the Examiner proposes would have nonetheless been an obvious variation. In short, the Examiner’s proposed Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 34 combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Although Appellant contends that Wong allegedly teaches away from using cellular-based technology as claimed (Appeal Br. 22; Reply Br. 7-8), nothing on this record indicates that Wong criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into the invention claimed as required for teaching away. See Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990. Appellant’s contention that using cellular-based technology in Wong as the Examiner proposes changes Wong’s principle of operation (Appeal Br. 22; Reply Br. 7-8) is likewise unavailing. Not only is this contention unsubstantiated, there is no persuasive evidence on this record proving that using cellular-based communications in connection with the second wireless network and its associated transceiver and antenna would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. Nor is there persuasive evidence on this record proving that using cellular-based communications in connection with Wong’s second wireless network as the Examiner proposes would somehow render Wong’s system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather, the Examiner’s proposed combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Nor is the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references premised on impermissible hindsight despite Appellant’s contention to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 22. To be sure, any judgment on obviousness is in a sense Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 35 necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but where, as here, it (1) takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made, and (2) does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 42. Claim 53 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 53. Claim 53 depends from claim 42 that recites a sensor for producing sensor data responsive to a sensed phenomenon, where (1) the sensor is coupled to the processor, and (2) the second data is responsive to the sensor data. Claim 53 adds that the thermoelectric actuator is activated or controlled responsive to the sensor data. Our emphasis on the word “or” underscores that the associated elements are recited in the alternative and, therefore, the cited prior art need only disclose one of the recited alternatives, namely activation or control, to satisfy the claim. As noted previously, independent claim 1, from which claims 52 and 53 depend, requires the appliance’s enclosure to house (1) the wireless transceivers; (2) processor; and (3) thermoelectric actuator. Although dependent claim 52 recites that the appliance further comprises a sensor for producing sensor data, neither claim 52 nor claim 53 requires the sensor to be housed in the appliance’s enclosure unlike elements (1) to (3) above. Appellant’s contention, then, that claim 53 recites that the sensor and actuator are part of the same device in the same enclosure (Reply Br. 8) is, at Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 36 best, overstated, for the claim recites no such requirement. Although the recited sensor is part of the appliance, the sensor need not be in the appliance’s enclosure. Nor does the claim require the sensed phenomenon to be associated with the appliance, much less inside the appliance’s enclosure. In rejecting claims 52 and 53, the Examiner does not say what specific elements or features in Wong correspond to each recited element, including the recited sensor. See Final Act. 28. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes the claim language and cites (1) Wong’s paragraphs 94 to 96, 104, and 107 in connection with claim 52, and (2) Wong’s paragraphs 50, 65, 86, and 107, and Rawski’s paragraphs 29, 96, 97, and 106 in connection with claim 53 with no explanation or analysis for either claim. See id. These omissions and ambiguities in the Examiner’s findings make our task of discerning the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the key recited elements at issue in this appeal all the more difficult. Nevertheless, the Examiner explains in the Answer that Wong teaches the claimed appliance with activation or control of an actuator based on a sensor output in the same system, namely the same appliance explained in connection with claim 1. See Ans. 12-13. We see no error in these findings, particularly since Wong’s sensor modules can comprise, among other sensors, temperature sensors, including a temperature sense system. See Wong ¶¶ 63, 105, 117; Figs. 9-11 (showing temperature sense systems 914, 1014, and 1114, respectively). Not only does this disclosure at least suggest providing a sensor in the appliance enclosure-which the claim does not require-Wong at least suggests activating or controlling the appliance’s associated actuator Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 37 responsive to the sensor’s data which, for a temperature sense system, pertains to temperature. We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that Wong is limited to remote control as Appellant seemingly suggests (see Appeal Br. 23-25; Reply Br. 8), for nothing in the claim precludes controlling or activating the recited actuator at least partly remotely. All the claim requires is that the thermoelectric actuator be activated or controlled responsive to sensor data-sensor data that is produced by a sensor that need not be in the appliance’s enclosure as noted previously. Appellant’s contentions in this regard, then, are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Although Appellant contends that Wong allegedly teaches away from local control (Appeal Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 8), nothing on this record indicates that Wong criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into the invention claimed as required for teaching away. See Norgren, 699 F.3d at 1326; see also Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990. Appellant’s contention that using local control in lieu of Wong’s cloud-based control allegedly changes Wong’s principle of operation (Appeal Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 8) is likewise unavailing. Not only is this contention unsubstantiated, it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim that does not preclude at least some remote control as noted previously. Nevertheless, there is no persuasive evidence on this record proving that using a sensor to activate or control the thermoelectric actuator under the Examiner’s proposed combination would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. Nor is there persuasive evidence on this record Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 38 proving that using a sensor to activate or control the thermoelectric actuator under the Examiner’s proposed combination would somehow render Wong’s system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902. Rather, the Examiner’s proposed combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 25), the rationale to combine the references is relevant to the recited actuator activation or control functionality at least to the extent that it pertains to a more efficient actuator with sensor-based activation or control capabilities as noted above. See Ans. 13 (referring to the rationale articulated in connection with claim 1 as also pertinent to the rejection of claim 53). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 53. Claim 56 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 56. Claim 56 depends from claim 52 and recites a single component consists of, or is part of, the sensor and thermoelectric actuator. Our emphasis on the word “or” underscores that the associated elements are recited in the alternative and, therefore, the cited prior art need only disclose one of the recited alternatives to satisfy the claim. In rejecting claim 56, the Examiner does not say what specific elements or features in Wong correspond to each recited element, including the recited “single component.” See Final Act. 29. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes the claim language and cites Wong’s paragraph 63 and Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 39 Rawski’s Abstract with no explanation or analysis. See id. These omissions and ambiguities in the Examiner’s findings make our task of discerning the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the key recited elements at issue in this appeal all the more difficult. Nevertheless, the Examiner explains in the Answer that Wong’s paragraph 63 teaches a single device that is part of the disclosed sensor and actuator. Our emphasis underscores that the Examiner apparently maps the recited component to a device, and that the Examiner relies on the recited “part of” alternative, namely that the single component is part of the sensor and thermoelectric actuator. We see no error in these findings. First, Appellant’s contention that the claim requires the same component to include both a sensor and an actuator (Appeal Br. 25; Reply Br. 8) is, at best, overstated, for the claim recites no such requirement. Accord Ans. 13 (noting this point). Rather, the claim requires that a single component-a component whose function and structure is not further specified in the claim-merely be part of the sensor and actuator, at least in one alternative. Second, Appellant admits that Wong’s paragraph 63 may disclose a sensor and actuator in the same wireless device (Appeal Br. 25)-a device that, notably, the Examiner presumably maps to the recited single component. See Ans. 13 (finding that Wong’s paragraph 63 “teaches a single device is part of the sensor and actuator”) (emphasis added). Appellant’s contentions, then, are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim that does not preclude Wong’s device that is at least part of the sensor and actuator. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 40 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 56. Claim 57 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 57. Claim 57 depends from claim 52 and recites that the sensor is a thermoelectric sensor that responds to a temperature or to a temperature gradient of an object using conduction, convection, or radiation, and where the thermoelectric sensor consists of, or comprises, (1) a PTC thermistor; (2) a NTC thermistor, (3) a thermocouple; (4) a quartz crystal; or (5) a RTD. Our emphasis underscores that the claim requires a thermoelectric sensor (a) with the recited response characteristics, and (b) that consists of, or comprises, one of the five recited alternatives enumerated above. In rejecting claim 57, the Examiner does not say which recited alternative is taught or suggested by the cited prior art, much less identify what specific elements or features in the prior art correspond to each recited element. See Final Act. 29. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes the claim language and cites Rawski’s paragraph 42 with no explanation or analysis. See id. These omissions and ambiguities in the Examiner’s findings make our task of discerning the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the key recited elements at issue in this appeal all the more difficult. Appellant argues that (1) the recited features of Rawski’s paragraph 42 are irrelevant to claim 57’s limitations, and (2) the Examiner’s relied- upon rationale for rejecting claim 1 is presumably inapplicable to claim 57. See Appeal Br. 26. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 41 In response, the Examiner indicates that Appellant’s argument does not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) because Appellant does not point out how the claim language patentably distinguishes over the cited references. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner also refers to the motivation to combine explanation made in connection with claim 1 as also applicable to claim 57. See Ans. 14. On this record, we see no harmful error in the Examiner’s reliance on Rawski’s paragraph 42 for at least suggesting the recited thermoelectric sensor, particularly given Appellant’s general and unspecific arguments regarding the Examiner’s reliance on that reference. As Rawski’s paragraph 42 explains, temperature sensor circuit 40 includes temperature sensors S1- S4 that can be thermistors, thermocouples, or similar devices. Notably, both thermistors and thermocouples correspond to three of the five recited sensor alternatives in claim 57, albeit Rawski not stating explicitly that the thermistors have PTC or NTC characteristics. Nevertheless, using such thermoelectric sensors in connection with the appliance of the proposed combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 26; Reply Br. 9), the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references is relevant to the recited sensor functionality at least to the extent that it pertains to a more efficient actuator with sensor-based functionalities as noted above. See Ans. 26 (referring to the rationale articulated in connection with claim 1 as also pertinent to the rejection of claim 57). Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 42 Therefore, regardless of whether Appellant’s arguments comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b), we are nonetheless not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 57. THE REJECTION OVER WONG, RAWSKI, AND DISCENZO Claims 8 and 41 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 reciting the second wireless network is a satellite network, the second antenna is a satellite antenna, and the second wireless transceiver is a satellite modem. In rejecting claim 39 from which claim 41 depends, the Examiner cites Wong’s paragraph 42 for teaching the recited WLAN-based limitations. Final Act. 26. These findings are undisputed. In rejecting claim 41, the Examiner acknowledges that Wong and Rawski do not teach a wide area network (WAN) satellite network, but cites Discenzo for teaching that feature. Final Act. 31 (citing Discenzo col. 15, l. 57 - col. 16, l. 44). According to the Examiner, providing this satellite- based capability in the Wong/Rawski system improves the wireless devices’ compatibility with respect to different types of wireless networks. See Final Act. 31; Ans. 14. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 27-29; Reply Br. 9-10), we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Discenzo for at least suggesting that using satellite-based wireless communication in connection with the second wireless network would have been at least an obvious variation. As shown in Discenzo’s Figure 7, communications module 704 is associated with sensor module 104 so that collected data can be communicated to a disparate system, sensor, host, network, and/or entity. Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 43 Discenzo col. 15, ll. 56-61. Notably, the communications module can be, among other things, a WAN interface (e.g., satellite). Id. col. 15, ll. 61-62, 66. Given this known technique of using satellite-based WAN functionality to communicate data from a sensor module to a remote location, using satellite communications in lieu of WLAN-based communications in connection with the second wireless network and its associated transceiver and antenna as the Examiner proposes would have been an obvious variation to provide compatibility with WAN-based communication systems in addition to WLAN systems, thus increasing the scope and range of destinations to which the collected data is sent. In short, the Examiner’s proposed combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that Wong’s wireless sensors are solely internal to a building as Appellant contends. See Appeal Br. 27. Providing satellite communication in connection with the recited second wireless network as the Examiner proposes would enhance the Wong/Rawski system by not only facilitating data communication via WLAN functionality, but also WAN functionality so that communication is possible beyond the range of a WLAN-a useful adjunct yielding a predictable result. See WAN, Harry Newton, NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY 988 (22d ed. 2006) (defining “WAN” as “[a] public voice or data network that extends beyond a metropolitan area. A LAN (Local Area Network) generally is confined to a building or campus environment . . . A WAN extends farther, perhaps even internationally.”). Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 44 We reach this conclusion even if Wong already discloses various wireless networking alternatives as Appellant contends (see Appeal Br. 32- 33) because Wong does not disclose WAN-based satellite communication as Discenzo suggests. See Discenzo col. 15, ll. 61-62, 66. Nevertheless, Appellant’s authority for the contention that reliance on “redundant” advantages from Wong ostensibly precludes an obviousness conclusion (see Appeal Br. 28-29) is based on non-precedential Board decisions Ex parte Saiki, Appeal 2000-0373 (BPAI Jan. 17, 2002); Ex parte Burak, Appeal 2004-0823 (BPAI Dec. 8, 2004); Ex parte Anttila, Appeal 2010-006328 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2012); Ex parte Kastelewicz, Appeal No. 2008-004808 (BPAI June 9, 2009); and Ex parte Levine, Appeal 2010-001240 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2012). Not only are the facts in these cases different from those at issue here, as non-precedential decisions, they are not binding on this panel in any event. See PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Rev. 10) § I(B). Nor have these decisions been designated as informative. See Alphabetical Listing of Informative Decisions, USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ ptab/decisions-and-opinions/informative-opinions-0. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 41, and claim 8 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 55 We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 55 reciting multiple sensors arranged as a directional sensor array operative to estimate the number, magnitude, frequency, Direction-of-Arrival (DOA), distance, or speed of the phenomenon impinging on the sensor array. Our emphasis on Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 45 the term “or” underscores that only one of the recited alternatives need be disclosed by the prior art to satisfy the limitation. Despite these alternatives, a key aspect of the recited sensor array is that it is directional. In interpreting the term “directional sensor array,” we first note that the Specification does not define the term despite being replete with concrete definitions of other terms whose clear and unambiguous definitions leave no doubt as their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 3-4, 9, 75, 81, 114, 168, 182-83, 192-93, 196-201, 208 (defining various terms explicitly). The Specification does, however, refer to sensor arrays and, in particular, directional sensor arrays. See Spec. 29, 46, 108. According to the Specification, a sensor array is a set of several identical or similar sensors that (1) is used to gather information that cannot be gathered from a single sensor, or (2) improves measuring or sensing relating to a single sensor. Spec. 108. The Specification further explains that a sensor array commonly improves sensitivity, accuracy, resolution, and other parameters of the sensed phenomenon, and may be arranged as a linear sensor array. Id. The Specification adds that directional sensor arrays better measure the parameters of the impinging signal to the array, such as the signals’ number, magnitudes, frequencies, DOA, distances, and speeds. See id. at 29, 108. The import of this discussion is that (1) sensor arrays improve sensing measurement relative to a single sensor, at least with respect to sensitivity, accuracy, resolution, and other parameters of a sensed phenomenon, and (2) directional sensor arrays are “better” than other sensor arrays in that regard. Although the Specification does not say why, or in what way, directional sensor arrays are “better” than other sensor arrays in this respect, the fact Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 46 that these sensor arrays are directional suggests that they improve sensing and measurement by favoring one direction over another. The plain meaning of the term “directional” confirms this point. According to an electrical engineering dictionary, the term “directional” means “[p]ertaining to, or indicating a direction in space,” or, alternatively, “[c]apable of sending or receiving signals in only one direction.” That same dictionary provides two other alternate definitions of “directional,” namely “[c]apable of sending or receiving signals substantially better in a given direction,” and “[f]unctioning exclusively, or substantially better, in a given direction, or in specific directions.” Directional, Steven M. Kaplan, WILEY ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DICTIONARY 198 (2004). Another electronics dictionary defines the term “directional” as (1) “[d]epending on the direction or orientation”; (2) [h]aving a concentration in an identifiable direction”; or (3) “[a] form of transducer in which radiation, or sensitivity, is concentrated in certain directions at the expense of radiation or sensitivity in other directions.” Directional, Rufus P. Turner & Stan Gibilisco, THE ILLUSTRATED DICTIONARY OF ELECTRONICS 170 (5th ed. 1991). Perhaps even more relevantly, another electronics dictionary defines the term “directional transducer” as “[a] device that senses or emits some effect to an extent that depends on the direction from which the effect comes. Directional effects are often, but not always, accompanied by gain in the favored direction(s).” Directional Transducer, THE ILLUSTRATED DICTIONARY OF ELECTRONICS 196 (Stan Gibilisco ed., 8th ed. 2001). The import of these authorities is that a directional sensor array is a sensor array that functions exclusively, or substantially better, in a given Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 47 direction, or in specific directions, by sensing an effect to an extent that depends on the direction from which the effect comes. Given this interpretation, the Examiner’s reliance on Discenzo’s multi-element sensor 1900 with its viscosity sensor 1910 and finger-like elements 1912 in Figure 19 and column 34, line 57 to column 35, line 6 is problematic on this record. See Final Act. 31-32; Ans. 15-16. Although Discenzo’s multi-element sensor is a sensor array, we cannot say-nor has the Examiner shown-that this array is directional as claimed, where the sensor array functions exclusively, or substantially better, in a given direction, or in specific directions, by sensing an effect to an extent that depends on the direction from which the effect comes consistent with its plain meaning in the art as noted above. Accord Appeal Br. 30; Reply Br. 10 (noting that Discenzo does not teach or suggest any array that serves as a directional sensor). We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that Discenzo’s sensor array can estimate a phenomenon’s magnitude as the Examiner finds (see Ans. 15), for the Examiner does not explain how or why Discenzo’s sensor array is directional. Nor will we speculate in that regard here in the first instance on appeal. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 55. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the Examiner’s rejection of this claim, we need not address Appellant’s other associated arguments. THE REJECTION OVER WONG, RAWSKI, AND HOLLAND We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 that recites (1) the first wireless network is a Wireless Personal Area Network (WLAN); (2) the Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 48 first antenna is a WPAN antenna; and (3) the first wireless transceiver is a WPAN modem. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 31-33; Reply Br. 11-12), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Holland’s paragraph 71 for at least suggesting the recited WPAN components, particularly given Holland’s teaching in that paragraph that wireless devices 13a, 13b can be radio frequency communicating wireless devices, including PAN devices. Using known PAN communication technology in connection with Wong’s system as the Examiner proposes uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions- an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Although Appellant argues that Wong allegedly teaches away from WPAN communication (Appeal Br. 31-32), nothing on this record indicates that Wong criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into the invention claimed as required for teaching away. See Norgren, 699 F.3d at 1326; see also Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990. Nor is there any persuasive evidence on this record proving that using WPAN in connection with Wong’s system as the Examiner proposes would somehow render Wong’s system unsuitable for its intended purpose or otherwise be beyond the skill level of ordinarily skilled artisans even assuming, without deciding, that WPAN has a limited communication range as Appellant asserts-an assertion that is likewise unsubstantiated on this record. Such arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 49 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 30, and claims 31-33, 35-38, 46, and 47 not argued separately with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 11, 34, 54, 59, 63, and 67. Final Act. 32-38. Because these rejections are not argued separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in these rejections for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 14 112, second paragraph Indefiniteness 14 1-7, 9, 10, 12- 29, 39, 40, 42- 45, 48- 53, 56- 58, 60- 62, 64- 66 103 Wong, Rawski 1-7, 9, 10, 12-29, 39, 40, 42-45, 48-53, 56- 58, 60-62, 64-66 8, 41, 55 103 Wong, Rawski, Discenzo 8, 41 55 34 103 Wong, Rawski, Holland, Discenzo 34 Appeal 2020-005890 Application 16/053,834 50 11 103 Wong, Rawski, Skrepcinski 11 30-33, 35-38, 46, 47 103 Wong, Rawski, Holland 30-33, 35- 38, 46, 47 54 103 Wong, Rawski, Franx 54 59 103 Wong, Rawski, Richmond 59 63 103 Wong, Rawski, Siann 63 67 103 Wong, Rawski, Kao 67 Overall Outcome 1-54, 56-67 55 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). AFFIRMED IN PART