SUNDERMEYER, Ken et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 23, 2020

13104932 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/104,932 05/10/2011 Ken SUNDERMEYER 102005.024046 2219
71581 7590 04/23/2020
BakerHostetler / Comcast
Cira Centre, 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
HIGA, BRENDAN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2020 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 KEN SUNDERMEYER, PAUL J. DAWES, and
JIM FULKER
Appeal 2019-002004
Application 13/104,932
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 12, 15, 16, 23–27, 31–40, 47–63,
88, 105, and 113–151. See Final Act. 1. 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. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002004
Application 13/104,932
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a control system user interface. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a gateway configured to receive state data from a plurality
of premises devices, wherein the gateway and the plurality of
premises devices are located at a premises, and wherein the state
data indicates a state of a premises device of the plurality of
premises devices; and
a sensor user interface (SUI) configured for output via a
user device, wherein the SUI is based on the state data, and
wherein the SUI comprises:
a layout portion indicating at least a portion of the
premises, a device icon corresponding to the premises device,
wherein the device icon visually indicates a device type of the
premises device, and wherein a position of the device icon
visually indicates, relative to the layout portion, a location of the
premises device, and a device state icon that is output based on a
state change of the premises device and that at least partially
overlays the device icon, wherein the device state icon visually
indicates a current state of the premises device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Horon
Bilger
Hsu
US 6,229,429
US 6,756,998
US 7,526,539
May 8, 2001
June 29, 2004
Apr. 28, 2009
Naidoo
Kimmel
Gordon
Sheehy
Winick
Goffin
US 2002/0147982 A1
US 2002/0174367 A1
US 2003/0052905 A1
US 2004/0243996 A1
US 2005/0128068 A1
US 2006/0230270 A1
Oct. 10, 2002
Nov. 21, 2002
Mar. 20, 2003
Dec. 2, 2004
June 16, 2005
Oct. 12, 2006

Appeal 2019-002004
Application 13/104,932
3
REJECTION
In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1–6,
12, 15, 16, 23–27, 31–40, 47–63, 88, 105, and 113–151 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Ans. 3.
Claims 1–3, 6, 23–27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 53–57, 60, 88, 105,
114–118, 121–125, 128–132, 135–139, and 142–151 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, and
Gordon. Final Act. 7.
Claims 12, 15, 16, 39, 49, 58, 59, 61–63, 113, 119, 120, 126, 127,
133, 134, 140, and 141 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Goffin. Final Act. 14.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Bilger. Final Act. 19.
Claim 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Winick. Final Act. 20.
Claim 34 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Naidoo. Final Act. 20.
Claims 37 and 52 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Sheehy. Final Act.
21.
Claims 47, 48, 50, and 51 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Hsu. Final
Act. 21.
Appeal 2019-002004
Application 13/104,932
4
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred.
Figure 1 of Kimmel is reproduced below.

Figure 1 of Kimmel illustrates a “graphics screen viewed through a
security panel web page, wherein the graphics display contains a floorplan
layout, with special icons overlaid on a bitmap to identify sensor points and
their status.” Kimmel ¶ 20.
The Examiner concludes that similar to Figure 23 of Appellant’s
Specification, Kimmel teaches a graphical user interface with various icons
or dots that represent different premise devices of a premises (i.e., sensors
Appeal 2019-002004
Application 13/104,932
5
situated at alarm points), and when the status of the underlying device or
sensor changes, a white dot, which the Examiner interprets as the claimed
“device icon,” changes to a colored dot to represent the changed status,
which the Examiner interprets as the “device status icon.” Ans. 4 (citing
Kimmel, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 35–37, 45–53).
The Examiner finds that Gordon explains that the use of overlays was
well known in the art at the time of the invention. Ans. 4, 5 (citing Gordon
¶ 62). The Examiner also finds that Horon teaches the use of unique graphic
icons to visually indicate a premise device. Ans. 5 (citing Horon, 7:45–8:1).
Appellant argues that the cited portions of Kimmel do not teach “a
device icon corresponding to the premises device, wherein the device icon
visually indicates a device type of the premises device” and “a device state
icon that is output based on a state change of the premises device and that at
least partially overlays the device icon, wherein the device state icon
visually indicates a current state of the premises device,” as recited in claim
1. Appeal Br. 6, 7.
In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in pointing to
Kimmel’s alarm point icons as allegedly teaching both the claimed “device
icon” and the “device state icon,” thereby “denying due weight to at least
some of those limitations.” Appeal Br. 5, 6; Reply Br. 2. We are not
persuaded by this argument because the Examiner explains that in Kimmel,
when the status of the underlying device or sensor changes, the white dot
(i.e., the “device icon”) changes to a colored dot to represent the changed
status (i.e., the “device status icon”). Ans. 4. The Examiner does not deny
due weight to any claim limitations, but rather, explicitly explains how
Kimmel teaches both a device icon and a device status icon. Id. We also
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gordon demonstrates the use of
Appeal 2019-002004
Application 13/104,932
6
overlays for icons, and how an object can be altered from one state to
another. Gordon ¶ 62. Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Horon teaches the use of unique graphic icons to visually indicate a premise
device because Horon explains that “different device images” can
correspond to “different types of devices.” Horon, 7:45–8:1; Fig. 6.
Appellant does not appear to dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to
what Gordon or Horon teach, individually or in combination. See Reply Br.
1–5.
Thus, we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner is denying weight
or ignoring claim limitations by relying on various teachings of Kimmel’s
Figure 1 and associated descriptions to teach the device icon and device state
icon, as claimed. Rather, as explained herein and in the Answer, which we
agree with and adopt, the Examiner has explained in detail how the
combination of Kimmel, Gordon, and Horon teaches the disputed claim
limitations. See Ans. 3–5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under § 103.
Regarding the remaining pending claims, Appellant does not present
separate patentability arguments with particularity, or reiterates substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for claim 1. See generally
Appeal Br. 9–11. Therefore, we sustain the § 103 rejections of those claims
over the various combinations of references, as shown in the Decision
Summary below.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2019-002004
Application 13/104,932
7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 23–
27, 31, 32,
35, 36, 38,
40, 53–57,
60, 88,105,
114–118,
121–125,
128–132,
135–139,
142–151
103 Kimmel, Horon, and
Gordon
1–3, 6, 23–
27, 31, 32,
35, 36, 38,
40, 53–57,
60, 88,105,
114–118,
121–125,
128–132,
135–139,
142–151

12, 15, 16,
39, 49, 58,
59, 61–63,
113, 119,
120, 126,
127, 133,
134, 140,
141
103 Kimmel, Horon,
Gordon, Goffin
12, 15, 16,
39, 49, 58,
59, 61–63,
113, 119,
120, 126,
127, 133,
134, 140,
141

4, 5 103 Kimmel, Horon,
Gordon, Bilger
4, 5
33 103 Kimmel, Horon,
Gordon, Winick
33
34 103 Kimmel, Horon,
Gordon, Naidoo
34
37, 52 103 Kimmel, Horon,
Gordon, Sheehy
37, 52
47, 48, 50,
51
103 Kimmel, Horon,
Gordon, Hsu
47, 48, 50,
51

Overall
Outcome:
1–6, 12,
15, 16, 23–
27, 31–40,
47–63, 88,
105, 113–
151

Appeal 2019-002004
Application 13/104,932
8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED