Tyco Integrated Security, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2021

2020002093 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 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.
15/174,209 06/06/2016 Peter Dyk 0345.0001US2/
R-SN00202USC
4104
103122 7590 06/28/2021
HoustonHogle LLP
Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP
1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12
Lexington, MA 02420
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2021 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 PETER DYK, ALLAN MCLELLAN, KEN BRUBAKER,
TUCKWENG THAM, and KAM-YUEN KO
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BETH Z. SHAW, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, 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, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–22. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Tyco Integrated
Security, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to method and system for self-discovery and
management of wireless security devices. Claims 1, 12, and 21, reproduced
below, illustrate the claimed subject matter:
1. A security system providing discovery of wireless
security devices, comprising:
a control system for managing the wireless security
devices;
one or more wireless hubs for enabling wireless
connections to the wireless security devices; and
device controllers that control the one or more wireless
hubs and communicate with the control system over
communications channels and poll the wireless security devices
of the one or more wireless hubs to discover changes to the
wireless security devices including polling path information of
the wireless hubs to retrieve requests from the wireless security
devices assigned to slots of the wireless hubs, the changes to
the wireless security devices including adding new wireless
security devices to the wireless hubs, removing the wireless
security devices from the wireless hubs, and changing the
locations of the wireless security devices on the wireless hubs.
12. The system of claim 1, wherein in response to
receiving the messages from the control system over the
communications channels for communicating with the wireless
security devices, the messages including requested IDs of the
wireless security devices:
the device controllers search path information of slots of
the wireless hubs that includes IDs of the wireless security
devices assigned to the slots, and upon finding a match between
the requested IDs and the IDs of the wireless security devices
assigned to the slots, return messages that include an
acknowledgment of the match to the control system.

Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

3
21. The system of claim 3, wherein the device
controllers poll path information of the wireless hubs to retrieve
requests from the wireless security devices assigned to slots of
the wireless hubs using a polling daemon for polling the path
information of the wireless hubs to the wireless security
devices, and in response to receiving the messages from the
control system over the communications channels, the
messages including requested IDs of the wireless security
devices, the device controllers search path information of slots
of the wireless hubs that includes IDs of the wireless security
devices assigned to the slots, and upon finding a match between
the requested IDs and the IDs of the wireless security devices
assigned to the slots, return messages that include an
acknowledgment of the match to the control system, the device
controllers storing path information for slots of the wireless
hubs assigned to the wireless security devices and for the slots
of the wireless hubs unassigned to the wireless security devices,
and provide IDs of the wireless security devices for the
assigned slots to the control system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bass US 2004/0203654 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Barber US 2007/0211691 A1 Sept. 13, 2007
Raneri US 2008/0055073 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
Takashige US 2008/0298274 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Roberts US 2010/0148919 A1 June 17, 2010
Fraccalvieri US 2010/0296402 A1 Nov. 25, 2010
Watanabe US 2012/0044088 A1 Feb. 23, 2012
Dyk US 9,384,611 B2 July, 5, 2016
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18–20, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roberts, Watanabe, and Barber.
Final Act. 7–17.
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

4
Claims 4–6, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roberts, Watanabe, Barber, and Takashige. Final Act.
17–19.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Roberts, Watanabe, Barber, and Fraccalvieri. Final Act. 19–20.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Roberts, Watanabe, Barber, and Raneri. Final Act. 20–21.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Roberts, Watanabe, Barber, Bass, and Raneri. Final Act. 21–22.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
arguments, and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 7–22);
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–20), and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Claims 1, 14, 20
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Roberts of a security system comprising a control system, one
or more wireless hubs, and device controllers for controlling the wireless
hubs. Final Act. 7 (citing Roberts ¶¶ 16, 19–21, 25–27, 32, Figs. 1, 2, 4).
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure of Watanabe of tracking location
changes in network-connected devices by polling the devices and keeping
logs of the times the devices are removed from or added to the network.
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

5
Final Act. 8 (citing Watanabe ¶¶ 7, 8, 54, 62–65, 87, 88, 108, 115, Figs. 3,
7). Additionally, the Examiner relies on Barber as disclosing a controller
that polls the network devices and removes the device entry from a database
when a device is removed from the network. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Barber
¶¶ 8, 27, 49, 78–83, 98, Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that the proposed
combination would have improved Roberts’ system by enabling the system
“to automatically register device location information corresponding to a
network-connected device” and “to provide efficient and proper operation of
the network-connected device.” Final Act. 8–10.
With respect to the teachings of Roberts, Appellant argues the
Examiner’s characterization of controller 130 and room controller 125 in
Roberts as the claimed control system and wireless hubs, respectively, is
erroneous because the disclosed “central controller 130 would correspond to
only one device controller (as opposed to ‘device controllers’ in claim 1).”
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s citation to
Watanabe’s disclosure of “a device management apparatus may poll the
network-connected device to respond with RFID tag ID information” in
paragraph 87, does not clearly identify the relevant teachings to meet the
recited “polling path information of the wireless hubs” and “retrieving
requests from the wireless security devices.” Id. at 8–9. With respect to the
teachings of Barber, Appellant argues that the disclosed dynamic serial
device processing to add, update, or remove a device and the steps of
adding/removing devices are not related to “polling for the removal of
wireless security devices from the wireless hubs.” Id. at 9 (citing Barber
¶¶ 49, 78–83).
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

6
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that:
The unique information from a particular door lock card with
the lock identification is information that controls the lock/tag
controller 120 to allow door lock card 114 to open the door lock
when inserted in the lock slot ([0032]; FIG. 4: 152).
By providing this information to the door lock/tag
controller 120, room controller 125 is providing to the door
lock/tag controller 120 control information that configures the
door lock/tag controller 120 to unlock the door lock when new
door lock card is inserted in the lock slot on the door. ([0032];
FIG. 4: 152.
Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that “Roberts discloses device controllers
(room controller 125) that control one or more wireless hubs (door lock/tag
controller 120), as recited by claim 1.” Id. at 5. The Examiner also adds
that Watanabe’s system for managing network-connected devices teaches a
server that polls those devices for their location, time and location of the
added devices, time of removal of a device, and new device information in a
device history log. Id. at 6–8 (citing Watanabe ¶¶ 7, 54, 56, 58–65, 87, 88,
108, 124, Fig. 3, 7). Regarding the teachings of Barber, the Examiner
explains that the proposed modification to the combination of Roberts and
Watanabe is based on Barber’s disclosure of polling the ports to discover
whether a wireless device is removed. Ans. 10–11 (citing Barber ¶¶ 8, 27,
49, 78–83, 98, Fig. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. In particular, Appellant’s perceived mapping of the claimed wireless
hub to room controller 125 of Roberts is not based on the Examiner’s
explanation, nor the reference teachings. See Reply Br. 3. As stated by the
Examiner, room controller 125 receives lock identification and card entry
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

7
code information from door lock/tag controller 120 and forwards the
information to central controller 130. See Roberts ¶ 20; Ans. 4 (citing
Roberts ¶ 32). Door lock/tag controller 120, similar to the claimed wireless
hub, enables wireless connection to the wireless security devices such as
room lock 113 and its battery 116 (for locking the door), as well as door tag
131 and its RFID tag 132 (for providing privacy notices and service
requests). Roberts ¶¶ 21–23. Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s assertion
that no disclosure in Roberts indicates that door lock/tag controller 120
“functions as a wireless hub, with slots or paths for other locks or devices”
(Reply Br. 3), the above-discussed portions of Roberts show that door
lock/tag controller 120 accommodates slots or paths for other locks or
devices and specifically communicates with security devices (door lock and
door tag). See Roberts ¶¶ 20–23. We also find that the disclosure of room
controller 125 forwarding the lock and door tag information received from
door lock/tag controller 120 to central controller 130 meets the claimed
wireless hub and central controller. See Roberts ¶¶ 23–24; Ans. 5.
With respect to the teachings of Watanabe, we also agree with the
Examiner’s findings that the disclosed system for managing network-
connected devices polls or requests the devices to respond with their tag
identification. See Watanabe ¶¶ 7, 87, 88; Ans. 6. Watanabe also discloses
that the received tag information allows the system to generate device
location information or attributes that identifies the devices added to the
network. Watanabe ¶¶ 54, 115. Additionally, Watanabe teaches providing a
history log that tracks changes in the device location and indicates when a
device is removed or added, as well as obtaining the polling path
information to connect to each device. Watanabe ¶¶ 62–65; see also Ans. 4.
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

8
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Watanabe’s polling
network-connected devices does not teach or suggest “polling for path
information of the wireless hubs.” See Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4–6.
As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 8), polling devices in Watanabe
encompass polling for path information related to the device and its
connection location on a wireless network and identifying the specific
wireless path to that location. See Ans. 8 (citing Watanabe ¶¶ 63, 124, Fig.
7). Appellant’s conclusory attorney arguments asserting that Watanabe does
not teach polling path information of the wireless hubs are directly
contradicted by the portions of Watanabe relied on by the Examiner and
cited above. See also Ans. 6–9. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (“attorney argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is
required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”); Meitzner v. Mindick,
549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977) (“Argument of counsel cannot take the
place of evidence lacking in the record.”). Similarly, we agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding Barber’s disclosure of dynamic
device discovery as the recited discovering wireless security devices that are
removed from the wireless hub. See Barber ¶¶ 49, 78, 80, Fig. 3.
Appellant’s arguments are also unpersuasive because Appellant is
arguing the references separately, whereas the Examiner’s rejection is based
on the combination of references. Non-obviousness cannot be established
by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of
unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, the
test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a
whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

9
ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the Examiner has combined Roberts, which discloses the claimed
security system including a control system, wireless hubs, and device
controllers, with Watanabe and Barber, which disclose the required polling
of the network-connected devices and discovering changes to the device
location or their removal. Ans. 12–13.
Moreover, Appellant does not point to any evidence of record that the
resulting combination would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19
(2007)). The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21. We are persuaded the claimed
subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Claim 12
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 over
Roberts, Watanabe, Barber, and Raneri is in error because the cited portions
of Raneri do not teach or suggest the claimed features. Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant specifically argues that “there is no teaching in Raneri about
device controllers searching path information of slots of the wireless hubs
for IDs of wireless security devices, and returning an acknowledgment to a
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

10
control system upon finding a match between the requested IDs and those of
the security devices.” Id. at 15.
The Examiner responds that, in addition to the combination of
Roberts, Watanabe, and Barber, that disclose polling the network to discover
the polling path of network-connected devices, Raneri teaches sending a
query message to obtain device serial number associated with each control
device. Ans. 17 (citing ¶¶ 15, 16, 32–34). We agree and further find that
Raneri’s disclosure of transmitting device serial number provides room
controller (device controller) to Roberts’ path information of door lock/tag
controller 120 (the wireless hub) and the assigned security devices, which
allow matching the device to the hub and the device controller. See Ans. 18.
As further explained by the Examiner, “[b]y teaching that the system
transmits a ‘set found flag,’ Raneri teaches that the system has found a
match between the serial number transmitted by the remote device and a
master list of serial numbers associated with remote devices.” Id.
Claim 21
Appellant contends, in combining Bass with Roberts, Watanabe,
Barber, and Raneri to reject claim 21, the Examiner erred by finding Bass
teaches the recited the “device controllers poll path information of the
wireless hubs to retrieve requests from the wireless security devices
assigned to slots of the wireless hubs.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant
specifically argues that “a server polling an electronic mailbox of a device to
determine if a request has been received” is not the same as the disputed
limitation of claim 21. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that paragraphs 1, 12, and 19 of
Bass disclose polling a device mailbox to determine whether a request has
Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

11
been received, which causes the server to obtain and provide the requested
information to a requesting device. Ans. 19. The Examiner further explains
that modifying the applied prior art with Bass would result in the server
polling the wireless hubs to determine if the request has been received in the
device location. Id. at 19–20. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error
because, as discussed above, the rejection is based upon the combination of
the references. In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Here, the Examiner modified
the combined teachings of Roberts, Watanabe, Barber, and Raneri with the
disclosure of polling client devices mailbox in Bass to add the benefit of
verifying whether a request has been received to a particular wireless device
associated to a wireless hub.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of (1) independent
claims 1, 14, and 20 over Roberts, Watanabe, and Barber; (2) dependent
claim 12 over Roberts, Watanabe, Barber, and Raneri; and (3) dependent
claim 21 over Roberts, Watanabe, Barber, Bass, and Raneri. We also sustain
the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4–8, 10–13, and 16–20, and 22,
which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. Appeal Br.
10–13.

Appeal 2020-002093
Application 15/174,209

12
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 8,
10, 13, 14,
18–20, 22
103 Roberts,
Watanabe, Barber
1, 2, 7, 8,
10, 13, 14,
18–20, 22

4–6, 16, 17 103 Roberts,
Watanabe, Barber,
Takashige
4–6, 16, 17
11 103 Roberts,
Watanabe, Barber,
Fraccalvieri
11
12 103 Roberts,
Watanabe, Barber,
Raneri
12
21 103 Roberts,
Watanabe, Barber,
Bass, Raneri
21
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
10–14, 16–
22

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