Tyco Fire & Security GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2021

2021003008 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/105,308 06/16/2016 Manjuprakash Rama Rao 0324.0020US2FFD00084WO2US 5716
103122 7590 10/28/2021
HoustonHogle LLP
Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP
1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12
Lexington, MA 02420
EXAMINER
PHAM, TUONGMINH NGUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2021 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):
docketing@houstonllp.com
gerald.bluhm@jci.com
grant.houston@houstonllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MANJUPRAKASH RAMA RAO, SURAJIT BORAH,
SREENATH K. RAMANNA, P. U. KAMRUDDIN,
ANDREW RYNKIEWICZ, and CLIVE WESTON

Appeal 2021-003008
Application 15/105,308
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 12, 22, 25–29, and 31–36. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Tyco
Fire Products.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-003008
Application 15/105,308

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 9,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
9. A fire detection and suppression system, comprising:
a plurality of fire detectors for detecting a fire and
generating location information, each of the fire detectors
comprising a two-dimensional infrared sensor array;
a plurality of fog/jet monitors for suppressing the fire, the
fog/jet monitors having a fog mode and a jet mode; and
a system controller that determines a location of the fire and
activates the monitors to deploy suppressant based on a
distance between each of the monitors and the location of
the fire, the system controller further selectively
activating the fog mode and the jet mode based on the
distance between each of the monitors and the location of
the fire.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yoshida et al.
(“Yoshida”)
US 4,909,329 Mar. 20, 1990
Chan et al. (“Chan”) US 5,937,077 Aug. 10, 1999
Tan US 2004/0129434 A1 July 8, 2004
Lee US 2010/0117839 A1 May 13, 2010
Sundholm WO 94/06517 Mar. 31, 1994
Rejections
Claims 9, 12, 22, 25, 26, 29, 31–33, and 36 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yoshida, Chan, and Sundholm.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Yoshida, Chan, Sundholm, and Lee.
Appeal 2021-003008
Application 15/105,308

3

Claims 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Yoshida, Chan, Sundholm, and Tan.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Yoshida teaches the general requirements of
independent claim 9, including a fire detection and suppression system, a
plurality of fire detectors, a plurality of fog/jet monitors, and a system
controller. Final Act. 3. The Examiner does not rely on Yoshida alone to
teach all of the fire detection and suppression system’s claimed features. See
id. at 3–5. The Examiner finds that Yoshida fails to teach: first, that the
plurality of fog/jet monitors includes a fog mode, as required by claim 9; and
second, that “the system controller further selectively activating the fog
mode and the jet mode based on the distance between each of the monitors
and the location of the fire,” as recited in claim 9.2 See id. at 4.
To remedy the first deficiency, the Examiner relies on Sundholm’s
teaching of a manually maneuverable fire extinguishing device and method
that includes using nozzle 32 to provide a liquid jet mode from a long
distance away from a fire for producing a rain-like spray with a good cooling
effect or spray head 34 to provide a liquid fog mode in a close range from
fire to extinguish the fire. See Final Act. 4 (citing Sundholm, 6:33–7:7,
16:13–17, Figs. 6–8); see also Sundholm, 12:27–30.
As for the second deficiency, the Examiner does not find that
Yoshida, Chan, and Sundholm, individually, teaches the further claimed

2 The Examiner also finds Yoshida fails to teach, but that Chan teaches, fire
detectors that include a two-dimensional infrared sensor array. See Final
Act. 3.
Appeal 2021-003008
Application 15/105,308

4

feature of the claimed system controller to selectively activate a fog mode
and a jet mode.
Thereafter, the Examiner determines:
It would have been . . . obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art . . . to have modified Yoshida to incorporate the
teachings of Sundholm to provide the nozzles/monitors 7a-7d
of Yoshida to have a fog mode and jet mode so that the system
controller 10 can further select a fog mode or spray mode
based on the distance between each of the nozzles/monitors and
the location of the fire. Doing so would extend the capability of
the monitors in Yoshida to attack different kind of fires more
effectively without the risk of re-ignition as taught by
Sundholm in abstract, and page 1 line 5-8. It is also
contemplated that a strong liquid jet spray toward a fire at close
range would inadvertently knock the fuel source/material
already engulfed by fire to a different place not previously
subject to the fire and cause further spreading of fire.
Therefore, in addition to a stream/jet mode, further
incorporating the nozzles/monitors with a fog mode to be used
for fire at close range/short distance would allow cooling and
suppression of the fire safely without the undesired spreading
during the process.
Final Act. 4–5 (emphasis added). Also, the Examiner finds that Yoshida’s
system controller 10 selectively activates one of fire nozzles 7a–7d based on
a determination of distance and location. Ans. 3 (citing Yoshida, col. 3,
ll. 37–39, col. 5, ll. 22–36, Figs. 1–2); Final Act. 3. The Examiner explains
that “Yoshida is modified to add a fog mode to allow the system to suppress
fire more effectively, via the teachings in Sundholm.” Ans. 4 (citing
Sundholm 1:5–8).
The Appellant argues that the applied combination of teachings from
Yoshida, Chan, and Sundholm does not result in a “system controller further
selectively activating the fog mode and the jet mode based on the distance
Appeal 2021-003008
Application 15/105,308

5

between each of the monitors and the location of the fire,” as recited in
independent claim 9. See Appeal Br. 4–6. The Appellant’s argument is
persuasive.
As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Yoshida teaches system
controller 10. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Yoshida teaches “a
system controller (10) that determines a location of the fire (via section 3;
see fig. 1) and activates the monitors to deploy suppressant based on a
distance between each of the monitors and the location of the fire (via
sections 4, 5, 6; see fig. 1).” Final Act. 3; see Ans. 3.
More importantly, the Examiner finds that Yoshida fails to teach that
“the system controller further selectively activat[es] the fog mode and the jet
mode based on the distance between each of the monitors and the location of
the fire,” as recited in claim 9. Final Act. 4, 6. The Examiner’s rejection
does not rely on the teachings of Chan and/or Sundholm to teach this feature
of the claimed “system controller.” At best, the Examiner explains that
“Yoshida is modified to add a fog mode to allow the system to suppress fire
more effectively, via the teachings in Sundholm.” Ans. 4 (citing Sundholm
1:5–8). This explanation concerns a modification of nozzles/monitors 7a–7d
to include a fog mode, which would alter Yoshida’s overall system; but, the
explanation does not provide a reason for modifying Yoshida’s system
controller.
On this record, the Examiner’s rejection fails to provide a reason why
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Yoshida’s system controller to selectively activate the fog mode and the jet
mode based on the distance between each of the monitors and the location of
the fire. The Examiner’s rejection does provide adequate support for the
Appeal 2021-003008
Application 15/105,308

6

possibility that Yoshida’s system controller could have been modified to
selectively activate the fog mode and the jet mode based on the distance
between each of the monitors and the location of the fire, but does not
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been so
inclined. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections
on obviousness grounds . . . [require] some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)
(cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)).
Further, we note that the Appellant argues that “[o]nly with hindsight
are the specifics of the present invention met by the applied references.”
Appeal Br. 7, 10; see id. at 4, 5, 8–9. The Appellant supports this argument
by pointing out that Sundholm’s two-mode fire extinguishing device is
person-operated, which is not relevant to Yoshida’s supervising system. See
id. at 5, 6–7. In this regard, we find notable differences between the
purposes of Yoshida’s fire supervising system and Sundholm’s two-mode
fire extinguishing device. Yoshida’s supervising system is especially
suitable for a wide area, such as a colossal structure (e.g., a large-scale
pavilion, an air-dome stadium, etc.), and its water discharging nozzles 7a–7d
are mounted on turrets and fixed, vertically, at an angle of elevation the
provides maximum horizontal reach, e.g., within a range of 15–90 meters.
See Yoshida, col. 1, ll. 7–10; col. 6, 15–19, 65–col. 7, ll. 10, Figs. 3, 4, 6, 7.
Sundholm’s fire extinguishing device is movable and manually operated and
for extinguishing a normal apartment fire from a relatively long distance and
close range. See Sundholm, Abstract, 1:18–21, 5:3–5; 6:33–7:7, 12:27–30,
Figs. 1, 8. In view of these differences, we determine that some explanation
Appeal 2021-003008
Application 15/105,308

7

is required to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered it obvious to modify Yoshida’s system controller to selectively
activate the fog mode and the jet mode based on the distance between each
of the monitors and the location of the fire.
It is possible that the Examiner’s rejection is based on a notion that by
modifying Yoshida’s monitors to have a fog mode, in view of Sundholm’s
teachings, it is inherent that Yoshida’s system controller selectively activates
a fog mode and a jet mode based on the distance between each of the fog/jet
monitors and the location of the fire, as required by claim 9. For the
purposes of this appeal only, even if we were to assume that the Examiner’s
rejection is based on this notion, the rejection would be inadequately
supported. We note that “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation
in an obviousness analysis.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773
F.3d 1186, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). However, the
Examiner fails to explain –– and we fail to understand ––why Yoshida’s
system controller selectively activating a fog mode and a jet mode based on
the distance between each of the fog/jet monitors and the location of the fire
is necessarily present or the natural result based on the proffered
combination of elements. See id. at 1195–96 (“[T]o rely on inherency to
establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness
analysis––the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural
result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 9 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yoshida, Chan, and Sundholm. Independent claim 12
includes similar requirements as claim 9. See Appeal Br., Claims App. The
Appeal 2021-003008
Application 15/105,308

8

Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 includes the same deficiency
as the rejection of claim 9. See Final Act. 5–7. Therefore, we likewise do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 and its
dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yoshida,
Chan, and Sundholm. Further, the Examiner fails to rely on Lee or Tan in
any manner that would remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 9 and 12 as discussed above. Thus, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: dependent claims 27 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yoshida, Chan, Sundholm, and Lee;
and dependent claims 28 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Yoshida, Chan, Sundholm, and Tan.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9, 12, 22,
25, 26, 29,
31–33, 36
103 Yoshida, Chan,
Sundholm

9, 12, 22,
25, 26, 29,
31–33, 36
27, 34 103 Yoshida, Chan,
Sundholm, Lee
27, 34
28, 35 103 Yoshida, Chan,
Sundholm, Tan
28, 35
Overall
Outcome
9, 12, 22,
25–29,
31–36

REVERSED