The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2021

2020001388 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/879,110 10/09/2015 Erik John HASENOEHRL 14052 4688
27752 7590 05/20/2021
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
COYER, RYAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
centraldocket.im@pg.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ERIK JOHN HASENOEHRL
____________________

Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4–12, 14, 16–20, and 36. 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) (2018). According to Appellant, The Procter & Gamble
Company is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to “a system
and method for coupling operations of an air handling device and a volatile
composition dispenser.” Spec. 1:5–6. The air handling device and volatile
composition dispenser are each communicably connectable with a central
communication unit. Abstract. According to the Specification, example
volatile compositions may include perfume materials, malodor control
compositions, and materials that may function as insecticides. Spec. 6:30–
7:17. Independent claims 1 and 12 are reproduced below.
1. A system for circulating a volatile composition throughout
at least one room, the system comprising:

a central communication unit capable of receiving
incoming signals and sending outgoing instructions, the central
communication unit comprising a memory configured to store
settings;

a volatile composition dispenser capable of delivering the
volatile composition into the air of the at least one room,
wherein the volatile composition dispenser is communicably
connectable with the central communication unit through a
wireless communication link, wherein the volatile composition
dispenser is movable throughout the at least one room or
movable into a different room; and

an air handling device communicably connectable with
the central communication unit and configured to move air
throughout the at least one room upon receipt of an outgoing
instruction from the central communication unit wherein the
central communication unit sends an outgoing instruction to the
air handling device to turn on after the volatile composition
dispenser sends a signal to the central communication unit that
the volatile composition dispenser is turned off.

Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

3
12. A method of circulating a volatile composition
throughout at least one room using an air handling device, the
volatile composition being delivered into the at least one room
from a volatile composition dispenser, wherein the air handling
device and the volatile composition dispenser are each
communicably connectable with a central control unit, the
method comprising the steps of:

sending a first outgoing instruction from the central
control unit to the volatile composition dispenser to turn on the
volatile composition dispenser to dispense the volatile
composition directly into the at least one room;

sending a second outgoing instruction from the central
control unit to the volatile composition dispenser to turn off the
volatile composition dispenser after a first set point is reached;

sending a third outgoing instruction from the central
control unit to the air handling device to turn on the air
handling device at a second set point, wherein the second set
point is after the first set point is reached, wherein the air
handling device circulates air throughout the at least one room;

sending a fourth outgoing instruction from the central
control unit to the air handling device to turn off the air
handling device after a third set point is reached, wherein the
first and third set points are durations of time, and wherein the
second set point is after the first set point,

wherein the volatile composition dispenser is movable
throughout the at least one room or movable into a different
room.

Appeal Br. 13, 15 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

4
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–8, 10, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Pillai et al. (US
2014/0067130 A1, Mar. 6, 2014) (“Pillai”), Baughman (US 2,608,436,
Aug. 26, 1952), and Laudamiel-Pellet et al. (US 2005/0147523 A1, July 7,
2005) (“Laudamiel-Pellet”). Final Act. 7–14.
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Pillai, Baughman, Laudamiel-Pellet, and
Chandler et al. (US 2015/0019030 A1, Jan. 15, 2015) (“Chandler”). Final
Act. 14–15.
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Pillai, Baughman, Laudamiel-Pellet, and
Wetmore et al. (US 2014/0057232 A1, Feb. 27, 2014) (“Wetmore”). Final
Act. 15–16.
The Examiner rejects claims 12, 14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Pillai and Baughman. Final
Act. 3–7.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 3, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed January 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”);
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 20, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

5
Examiner’s rejection of some, but not all, of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Rejection of Independent Claim 12
Appellant contends that the combination of Pillai and Baughman does
not teach all of the limitations of claim 12, because neither Pillai nor
Baughman teaches a volatile composition dispenser that is both movable and
independent of an air handling device so as to perform “sending a third
outgoing instruction from the central control unit to the air handling device
to turn on the air handling device at a second set point, wherein the second
set point is after the first set point is reached.” Appeal Br. 5–6 (original
emphasis). Moreover, Appellant avers, the claim requires “a separate air
handling device that subsequently, after dispensing the volatile composition
into the room [by the volatile composition dispenser], circulates air
throughout the at least one room.” Id. at 6. Appellant argues that the
Examiner has not articulated why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined and modified the teachings of Pillai and Baughman to arrive
at the claimed method. Id. at 6–7.
We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Pillai and Baughman teaches all
of the limitations of claim 12. Final Act. 3–6; Ans. 18–21. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Pillai teaches sending outgoing instructions as claimed,
wherein the second set point is after the first set point is reached. Final
Act. 3–4 (citing Pillai ¶¶ 143–144, 217–222, Fig. 2); Ans. 18–20. The
Examiner further finds that Baughman teaches a movable volatile dispenser,
and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

6
the time of Appellant’s invention to combine the teachings of Pillai and
Baughman. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Baughman 1:1–8); Ans. 20–23.
Notably, Appellant’s arguments directed to “a volatile composition
dispenser that acts independent of an air handling device,” and “a separate
air handling device,” are not commensurate with the scope of claim 12.
Appeal Br. 5, 6 (emphasis added). Claim 12 does not require that the
dispenser and air handling device act independently of each other, or that the
air handling device be a device separate from the volatile composition
dispenser. Appellant has not explained why the dispenser and air handling
device of claim 12 may not be “at least partially co-located,” as Appellant
describes the dispenser and air handling device of Pillai. See id. at 6.
Moreover, Appellant’s argument that the combination of Pillai and
Baughman does not teach a movable dispenser in combination with an air
handling device for “sending a third outgoing instruction from the central
control unit to the air handling device to turn on the air handling device at a
second set point, wherein the second set is after the first set point is reached”
(Appeal Br. 5–6), is unavailing to show error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Pillai teaches method 800 of introducing scents or aromas into a habitable
environment, via a multi-step process. See Pillai ¶¶ 217–222 and Fig. 8.
Pillai provides that, after the last step, the method may re-start “on a periodic
basis, for instance [ ] every few minutes, hourly, or daily.” Id. ¶ 218. Thus,
Pillai teaches, in a first iteration of the method 800, the claimed step of
sending a first outgoing instruction at step 806 from the control subsystem to
turn on or open the reservoir, i.e., volatile composition dispenser, as well as
to operate the fans or blowers or heater, i.e., air handling device. Id. ¶ 220.
At step 808, the control subsystem sends the claimed second outgoing
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

7
instruction to the dispenser, fans, blowers, and heater to turn off those
components after a first time is reached. Id. ¶ 222. After a few minutes, or an
hour, or a day (id. ¶ 218), the method 800 begins again in a second iteration
of the method. The control subsystem again sends an instruction at step 806
to the dispenser, the fan, the blower, and the heater to turn them on, which
teaches the claimed third outgoing instruction at a second time, the second
time being after the first time is reached. Id. ¶ 220. Then, the control
subsystem in the second iteration performs step 808, which teaches the
claimed fourth outgoing instruction to the dispenser, the fan, the blower, and
the heater to turn them off after a third time is reached. Id. ¶ 222.
Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Pillai
teaches sending a first, a second, a third, and a fourth outgoing instruction as
claimed. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Pillai ¶¶ 143–144, 217–222, Fig. 2); Ans. 18–
20. Nothing in claim 12 precludes each of the outgoing instructions from the
central control unit from being sent to both the volatile composition
dispenser and the air handling device. See Claim 12.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s allegations that the
combination of Pillai and Baughman does not teach a movable volatile
composition dispenser “in combination with” an air handling device, and
that the Examiner has not provided motivation to modify the combination to
include the limitations directed to sending the first through fourth
instructions, wherein the second set point is after the first set point is
reached. Appeal Br. 6–7 (original emphasis). The Examiner finds, and we
concur, that Baughman teaches a movable volatile composition dispenser.
See Final Act. 5; Ans. 20–21. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s
findings concerning Baughman. The Examiner further determines that a
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

8
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine
the teachings of Pillai and Baughman, in order to provide the ability to move
the dispenser from room to room and reduce the necessary quantity of
dispensers to be purchased. Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 22. Appellant’s general
contention that the Examiner has not articulated a reason a skilled artisan
would have combined and modified the teachings of Pillai and Baughman to
arrive at the claimed method does not address the Examiner’s stated
rationale. Without more, such a contention is unpersuasive to show error.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the Examiner relies upon Pillai to teach the
claimed instructions. As such, the Appellant’s argument, on page 6 of the
Appeal Brief, that the Examiner has failed to articulate a reason to modify
the combination to include these limitations, is not well taken.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 12 and claims 14, 16–20, and
36 depending therefrom.

Rejection of Independent Claim 1
Appellant presents several arguments with respect to the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, based upon the combination of Pillai, Baughman, and
Laudamiel-Pellet. Appeal Br. 8–10. The dispositive issue presented by
Appellant’s arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Pillai, Baughman, and Laudamiel-Pellet teaches “the central
communication unit sends an outgoing instruction to the air handling device
to turn on after the volatile composition dispenser sends a signal to the
central communication unit that the volatile composition dispenser is turned
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

9
off,” as recited in claim 1.
We begin by construing the disputed limitation. Claim 1 bears the
hallmarks of a system claim, beginning by reciting “A system for . . .”
further defined by its component structures of a “central communication unit
capable of” certain recited functions, a “volatile composition dispenser
capable of” certain recited functions, and an “air handling device” having
certain defined configuration and connections . However, the claim further
recites that the central communication unit “sends” an instruction after the
volatile composition dispenser “sends” to it a particular signal, which appear
to be active steps characteristic of a method claim.
A claim reciting both an apparatus and a method of use or action may
be considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). In re Katz Interactive
Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(holding indefinite a system claim directed both to a system and user
actions). Alternately, a recited method step in a system claim may be
considered to be a particular capability of the apparatus. MasterMine
Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(finding a claim to a reporting module reciting “active verbs – presents,
receives, and generates,” to be definite, with such verbs describing
“capabilities” of the reporting module).
The Examiner construes Claim 1 as requiring a volatile composition
dispenser that “can” dispense its volatile composition when the air handling
device is not operating; i.e., as an apparatus having functional limitations.
See Final Act. 9. We agree that such a construction is permissible, and
construe the claim accordingly, as an apparatus claim having functional
language. MasterMine, 874 F.3d at 1313. Thus, the claim requires (1) that
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

10
the central communication unit be capable of sending an instruction to the
air handling device, wherein such instruction is to turn on the air handling
device, and (2) that the dispenser be capable of sending a signal to the
central communication unit, wherein such signal indicates that the dispenser
is turned off.
Appellant argues that Laudamiel-Pellet, at the Examiner’s cited
sections, does not teach or suggest a central communication unit that sends
an outgoing instruction to an air handling device to turn on after the
dispenser sends a signal to the central communication unit that the dispenser
is turned off. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner finds that Pillai teaches the
disputed limitation. Id. at 8 (citing Pillai ¶¶ 72–81, 143–144, 217–221,
Fig. 2). In particular, the Examiner finds that Pillai:
[T]eaches that (a) a signal is sent to scent vaporizers to initiate
heating scented material until they vaporize a predetermined
amount of scented material[,] and (b) a fan or blower is
activated to commence circulating the vaporized scented
material after a determination that the relevant scent dispensing
devices are no longer active.

Ans. 25 (citing Pillai ¶¶ 220–221; emphasis omitted). The Examiner further
finds that Laudamiel-Pellet teaches a volatile composition dispenser that
dispenses various volatile compositions at scheduled times, including times
when an air handling device is not operating, and thus capable of dispensing
volatile compositions at times when an associated air handling device is not
operating. Ans. 24; Final Act. 9–10 (citing Laudamiel-Pellet ¶¶ 104–105).
We are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
With respect to the claimed communication unit, the cited section of Pillai
describes a signal from the control subsystem to cause opening of a vent,
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

11
damper, valve, or a manifold, or to turn on a fan or blower. Pillai ¶ 220.
Thus, Pillai supports the Examiner’s finding that Pillai teaches a central
communication unit that is capable of sending an instruction to an air
handling device, wherein such instruction is to turn on the air handling
device.
However, neither Pillai nor Laudamiel-Pellet describe a volatile
composition dispenser that sends a signal. Instead, Pillai teaches only that
the control subsystem may send signals to the reservoirs, i.e., dispensers, and
“additionally or alternatively” also to fans or blowers or a heater, to turn on.
Pillai ¶ 220. Although the heater and fans are described as being activated
“alternatively,” e.g., with one being on and the other being off, such
activation is performed solely by Pillai’s control subsystem. Id. Similarly,
Laudamiel-Pellet’s “scent emission program” controls both heater and fan
operation according to control settings and user input. Laudamiel-Pellet
¶ 136. Although Figure 2 of Pillai suggests bi-directional communication
between Control Subsystem (202) and Scent Subsystem (210), as indicated
by the double arrowed line between the subsystem, the Examiner has not set
forth sufficient evidence or technical reasoning that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have modified Pillai’s Subsystem (202) to respond to user
input provided at the dispenser. See Pillai ¶ 221, Laudamiel-Pellet ¶128.
The Examiner has not pointed to any teaching or suggestion in either
Pillai or Laudamiel-Pellet of dispenser functionality for sending signals to
the control system or program.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not
Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

12
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 and claims 4–11
depending therefrom.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–8, 10,
36
103 Pillai,
Baughman,
Laudamiel-
Pellet
36

1, 4–8, 10
9 103 Pillai,
Baughman,
Laudamiel-
Pellet,
Chandler
9
11 103 Pillai,
Baughman,
Laudamiel-
Pellet,
Wetmore
11
12, 14, 16–
20
103 Pillai,
Baughman
12, 14, 16–20
Overall
Outcome
12, 14, 16–
20, 36
1, 4–11

Appeal 2020-001388
Application 14/879,110

13
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R.§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED IN PART