Ex Parte Grohman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201612603489 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/603,489 10/21/2009 Wojciech Grohman 134318 7590 10/03/2016 Baker Botts L.L.P./Lennox 2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 018635.0141 6617 EXAMINER BOOKER, KELVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WOJCIECH GROHMAN, AMANDA FILBECK, and TIMOTHY E. WALLAERT Appeal2015-005078 Application 12/603,489 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. YAP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, 16, 17, and 19-23, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lennox Industries, Inc. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2015-005078 Application 12/603,489 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention "is directed, in general, to HV AC systems and, more specifically, to a system and method for logical manipulation of system features." (October 21, 2009 Specification ("Spec.") i-f 2.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. An HV AC data processing and communication network, compnsmg: a user interface; a first subnet controller configured to operate with a first zone of said network with a first program schedule, said first zone including said user interface, said first subnet controller, and a plurality of comfort sensors, wherein said first subnet controller is configured to control an operation of a demand unit associated with said first zone based on input received from two or more of said plurality of comfort sensors; a second subnet controller configured to operate with a second zone of said network with a second program schedule; wherein the first and second subnet controllers are configured to operate both the first and second zones upon detecting a failure of the other one of the first or second subnet controllers, and to override said first and second schedules to operate said first and said second zones according to settings received from said user interface. 2 Appeal2015-005078 Application 12/603,489 Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Harrod et al. ("Harrod") US 2010/0070089 Al Mar. 18, 2010 Cruse US 7,349,761 Bl Mar. 25, 2008 Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16, 17, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harrod in view of Cruse. (See Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 28, 2014) ("Final Act.") 2-8.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-14, 16, 17, and 19-23. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that: Although HARROD focuses on a network that managing across zones, the art fails to explicitly teach of a system and method wherein the first and second subnet controllers are configured to operate both the first and second zones upon detecting a failure of the other one of the first or second subnet controllers. CRUSE teaches of an HV AC data processing and communication network whereby a user interface is employed that provides the capability for control and management over system elements, wherein the network includes an inactive subnet controller for separate zone(s), configured to operate as an active subnet controller(s) in the event a subnet controller malfunctions (see column 14, line 26 through column 15, line 11: subnet (node) activity is relative to component relationships and respective activity /inactivity levels). 3 Appeal2015-005078 Application 12/603,489 (Final Act. 3--4, emphasis in original.) According to the Examiner: It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ CRUSE's method of providing a mechanism to control failing elements of the system, with HARROD's method of controlling multiple zones via a HVAC interface, to provide a robust interface that allows for the management of components and operations of the system over multiple zones. (Id. at 4.) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in making these findings: The rejection relies on Cruse to cure the foregoing deficiency of Harrod, and specifically recites to the teachings in column 14, line 26 through column 15, line 11. However, Appellants cannot find any teaching in the applied teachings of Cruse as recited in the Final Office Action, column 14, line 26 through column 15, line 11, related to or suggesting separate individual first and second subnet controllers. (App. Br. 5.) The Examiner responds that the system in Cruse is viewed as a logical entity, whereby the controllers are equated to nodes, and in the event of a failure [e.g., non-responsive action assigned to a predetermined node] in a system, a pointer [and attached/designated functions] are reassigned to a differen[t] node to carryout the same operations (see columns 16-17 of the reference and the claim recitations noted in the final office action). (Ans. 8.) Claim 1 requires "wherein the first and second subnet controllers are configured to operate both the first and second zones upon detecting a failure of the other one of the first or second subnet controllers." (Emphasis added.) We are not persuaded that the portions of Cruse cited by the Examiner teach or suggest this limitation. (See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 8.) Even assuming arguendo that the controllers can be viewied as a logical 4 Appeal2015-005078 Application 12/603,489 entity, as the Examiner suggests, the portions of Cruse cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest that a node (i.e., a controller) is reassigned to another node "upon detecting a failure" of the node. We observe that the portions of Cruse cited by the Examiner do not even mention failure of any node, much less what to do in the event a node fails. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1.2 Thus, we also do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10, which depend on claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 21 contain similar limitations at issue, and the Examiner's findings regarding claims 11 and 21 are similar to the Examiner's findings concerning claim 1. (See Final Act. 6-8.) Therefore, we also do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 11 and 21 and dependent claims 12-14, 16, 1 7, 19, 2 0, 22, and 23, each of which depends from either claim 11 or claim 21. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7-14, 16, 17, and 19-23 is reversed. REVERSED 2 Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons discussed herein, we need not address Appellants' further arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on "a single dispositive issue"). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation