The Chamberlain Group, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 1, 20212020000939 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/654,187 07/19/2017 Jordan Ari Farber 5569-141338-US 1604 150733 7590 07/01/2021 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP/CGI 120 South LaSalle Street Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER TANG, SON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2021 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 JORDAN ARI FARBER, JEREMY EUGENE JENKINS, DILIP JAGJIVAN PATE, and JOHN STEVEN SCALETTA Appeal 2020-000939 Application 15/654,187 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13, 14, 16–23, 25 and 28– 40. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Chamberlain Group, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000939 Application 15/654,187 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to A movable barrier operator transmits a message to a remote peripheral platform and, upon determining that the remote peripheral platform is presently able to carry out a given functionality, responsively permits a particular function to be carried out by the movable barrier operator. Conversely, upon determining that it cannot be ascertained whether the remote peripheral platform is presently able to carry out the given functionality, the movable barrier operator responsively prevents the movable barrier operator from carrying out the particular function. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: at a movable barrier operator: monitoring, via a transceiver of the movable barrier operator, for both a learn-mode transmission from a remote control and a pairing-mode transmission from a remote peripheral platform, wherein monitoring includes switching the transceiver between a first reception band associated with the learn-mode transmission and a different, second reception band associated with the pairing-mode transmission; receiving the pairing-mode transmission from the remote peripheral platform; establishing a relationship with the remote peripheral platform upon receipt of the pairing-mode transmission; wirelessly transmitting a message from the transceiver of the movable barrier operator to the remote peripheral platform; upon determining that the remote peripheral platform is presently able to carry out a given functionality, responsively permitting a particular function to be carried out by the movable barrier operator; upon being unable to determine whether the remote peripheral platform is presently able to carry out the given Appeal 2020-000939 Application 15/654,187 3 functionality, responsively preventing the movable barrier operator from carrying out the particular function; and wherein the remote peripheral platform comprises an announcing device. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCE(S) The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Mays US 6,634,408 B2 Oct. 21, 2003 Brundula US 2006/0158339 A1 July 20, 2006 Rodriguez US 2008/0224886 A1 Sept. 18, 2008 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13, 14, 16–23, 25, and 28– 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula. Final Act. 2–13. OPINION Appellant argues The Office Action asserts that Mays’ remote controls 46, 48 are the remote control of claim 1 and the control unit 38 is the remote peripheral platform of claim 1. (See, e.g., Office Action, page 7, “receiving a transmission from a remote peripheral platform (38).”) The Office Action further asserts that Mays' remote controls 46, 48 are the devices that are checked for ability to perform a function. . . . But claim 1 calls for determining whether the remote peripheral platform (the control unit 38) is able to carry out a given functionality, not the remote control (remote control 46, 48). Appeal Br. 16. In the Final Action, the Examiner identifies Mays’ control unit 38 as the remote peripheral platform for some limitations of claim 1 and Mays’ Appeal 2020-000939 Application 15/654,187 4 remote units 46 and 48 as the remote peripheral platform for other limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 7–8. We agree with Appellant then it is at least unclear how the Examiner applies Mays’ to the limitations of claim 1. See, e.g., Final Act. 7; Ans. 5. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. If prosecution reopens, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether Mays’ remote units 46 and 48 teach the claimed remote peripheral platform (similar to the discussion about claim 13 below). Regarding claim 13, the Examiner consistently identifies Mays’ remote units 46 and 48 as the remote peripheral platform for claim 13 (Final Act. 2–3) so this argument is not persuasive with respect to claim 13. Appellant also argues that Rodriguez fails to teach or suggest the claimed monitoring, via a transceiver of the movable barrier operator, for both a learn-mode transmission from a remote control and a pairing-mode transmission from a remote peripheral platform, wherein monitoring includes switching the transceiver between a first reception band associated with the learn-mode transmission and a different, second reception band associated with the pairing-mode transmission. Appeal Br. 13–17. In particular, Appellant contends that Rodriguez only generally teaches multiple antennas to monitor multiple reception bands. Reply Br. 2. Appellant also contends that because Rodriguez fails to teach or suggest the claimed learning mode transmission of one reception band and a pairing mode transmission of a second reception band, Rodriguez also fails to teach monitoring for these transmissions. Appeal Br 15. The Examiner, however, finds that Rodriguez teaches the limitations. According to the Examiner, these names are obvious as a matter of design Appeal 2020-000939 Application 15/654,187 5 choice based on the teaching of Rodriguez. Ans. 3–4. Specifically, the Examiner reasons Since, applicant never claimed any particular reason or purpose to specifically named the learn-mode transmission or the pairing- mode transmission to the particular remote devices, that having any effective in communication with the remote control and that remote peripheral platform. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would name the reception signal from the remote control and remote peripheral platform any appropriate name, including the learn-mode and pairing-mode transmissions. Ans. 4. As Appellant points out, the Specification describes “learning is based upon a one-way approach to communications whereas pairing relies upon a two-way communications ability between the movable barrier operator and the remote platform.” Spec. ¶ 44. Rodriguez similarly teaches a transceiver including a local antenna and network antenna, each operating at different frequency values. Rodriguez ¶ 23. Rodriguez describes the local antenna is configured to primarily receives commands, whereas the network antenna is configured to transmit and receive various commands. Rodriguez ¶ 23. In other words, Rodrigues teaches a local antenna for one-way transmissions and a network antenna for two-way transmission. This is consistent with the Specification. As such, we are not persuaded that Rodrigues fails to teach the claimed learning and pairing mode transmissions and monitoring for those transmissions. Appellant do not present additional arguments as to the patentability of claim 13 and, therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula renders Appellant’s claim 13 obvious. With respect to independent claims 25 and 33, Appellant argues that Brundula fails to teach “not effect closing the barrier where the announcing Appeal 2020-000939 Application 15/654,187 6 device is presently not able to announce the warning in response to the command.” Appeal Br 18. In particular, Appellant argues Brundula discloses a garage door opener having an alarm for warning people that the associated garage door is going to close. Brundula does not address what would happen if its alarm fails. At most, Brundula discloses that when its systems batteries get low, “alarms also go off but with different intensities to warn the user to change the system batteries.” (Paragraph [0011].) Appeal Br. 18. The Examiner responds Brundula teaches the alarm is immediately generated when effect closing barrier command is received at the controller, and if the door open too long and not closing command signal to do so, the controller calls a phone number, if the phone module is part of the system, or if the command is sensed to be open the door command (e.g. not effect closing the barrier command) the announcing device is not immediately generated alarm, rather waits a specified time then generated alarm or make a phone call to a specified phone number. That, the warning is configured to not generate alarm in response to the door open command. Ans. 6–7. We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 25 and 33. Claims 25 and 33 expressly recite closing or not closing a barrier (in response to a timer to close signal or remote close signal) based on whether the announcing device is able to announce a warning. We disagree that Brundula’s not producing an alarm in response to an open door command teaches the claimed not closing a barrier when an announcing device is not able to announce a warning. Based on the record before us, the Examiner fails to sufficiently identify how the combination of Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula teaches the limitations of claims 25 and 33 and, as such, we are Appeal 2020-000939 Application 15/654,187 7 persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 25 and 33 as obvious over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we sustain the rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16–23 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula, but do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–11, 25, and 28– 40 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16–23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula is affirmed, but the rejection of 1, 2, 4–11, 25, and 28–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–11, 13, 14, 16– 23, 25, 28– 40 103 Mays, Rodriguez, Brundula 13, 14, 16– 23 1, 2, 4–11, 25, 28–40 AFFIRMED-IN-PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation