Ex Parte Poojary et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 201612963722 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/963,722 92689 7590 HONEYWELL/SLW Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 12/09/2010 03/29/2016 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rajesh V. Poojary 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. H0024430 3450 EXAMINER NAW AZ, ASAD M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAJESH V. POOJARY, AJIL ROY, and GIRI BABU GUNTIP ALLI Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to a building management system (BMS) server that automatically transmits information about devices (e.g., field devices (i-f 11)) to a personal communication device related to a zone, the zone having a wireless access point that communicates with the personal communication device. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics: 1. A process comprising: receiving into a building management system (BMS) server information relating to a plurality of wireless access points, a plurality of building zone controllers, and a plurality of zones, wherein each wireless access point is associated with a particular zone that includes a particular group of building zone controllers; receiving into the BMS server, from a personal communication device, data relating to a wireless access point with which the personal communication device is in communication; and automatically transmitting from the BMS server to the personal communication device maintenance and commissioning information relating to a plurality of devices located in a first zone, wherein the first zone is associated with the wireless access point with which the personal communication device is in communication; wherein the BMS server integrates the utilities in a building. 2 Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lim (US 2009/0264070 Al; Oct. 22, 2009) and Lai (US 2005/0222889 Al; Oct. 6, 2005). Claims 2, 3, 10, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lim, Lai, and Parello (US 7 ,962,589 B 1; June 14, 2011 ). Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lim, Lai, and Vardi (US 2009/0042557 Al; Feb. 12, 2009). Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lim, Lai, and Malcolm (US 2008/0301149 Al; Dec. 4, 2008). 1 ANALYSIS We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 1) that the combination of Lim and Lai would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "commissioning information ... integrates the utilities in a building." The Examiner found that the communications system of Lai for facility management, in which inspectors enter information into a portable inspection device and transmit such information to a central computer system, corresponds to the limitation "commissioning information ... integrates the utilities in a building." (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 3-5.) We agree with the Examiner. 1 Appellants have not presented any arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2--4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any such arguments are deemed to be waived. 3 Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 Lai relates to "computer systems for performing facility management tasks." (i-f l.) Figure 1 of Lai illustrates quality assurance system 100, including portable inspection device 10 and central computer system 20 (i-f 31 ), such that "inspection device 10 executes quality assurance software that allows an inspector to enter inspection information about the inspection targets, e.g., furniture, room, wall, etc., being inspected" (i-f 32). Lai explains that "an inspector walks through one or more locations in building 30 carrying inspection device 10" (i-f 46) and "[i]n addition to entering values for inspection functions, the inspector also identifies deficiencies for the location, such as lights not working, leaking faucets or soiled carpets" (i-f 72). Table II of Lai illustrates categories of deficiencies, including "Electrical" and "Plumbing." (i-f 72.) Lai further provides an example in which a worker performing a repair of a light out (i-f 99) "can ... place the work order on hold, such as where the facility does not have any replacement bulbs in inventory" (i-f l 00). Because quality assurance system 100 of Lai identifies problems with electricity and plumbing, including repairs involving replacement parts (e.g., light bulbs), Lai teaches or suggests the limitation "commissioning information" for "the utilities in a building." Lai further explains that "[ q]uality assurance system 100 provides quality assurance functionality for inspecting any size facility, from a single small office building to an enterprise ... for storing the information in a central database for reporting and comparison purposes." (i-f 45.) Because quality assurance system 100 of Lai provides quality assurance functionality for a single building and stores such information in a central database, Lai teaches or suggests the limitation "integrates the utilities in a building." 4 Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 Appellants argue that "[t]he Lai reference does not disclose transmitting 'commissioning information' to a personal communication device, or 'integrat[ing] the utilities in a building"' but instead "Lai relates to facility management tasks." (App. Br. 8.) Similarly, Appellants argue "that when one commissions a device he or she places that device into service" but "the Lai reference relates to facility management tasks such as lights that are not working, leaky faucets, and soiled carpets." (Reply Br. 1.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Lai explains that a worker performing a repair of a light out (i-f 99) "can ... place the work order on hold, such as where the facility does not have any replacement bulbs in inventory" (i-f l 00), and thus teaches or suggests the limitation "commissioning information." Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lim and Lai would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "commissioning information ... integrates the utilities in a building." We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2-3) that the combination of Lim and Lai would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "automatically transmitting from the BMS server to the personal communication ... information ... wherein the first zone is associated with the wireless access point with which the personal communication device is in communication." The Examiner found that the contact list of Lim, which is made available to the cell phone user in a zone, corresponds to the limitation "automatically transmitting from the BMS server to the personal communication ... information ... wherein the first zone is associated with 5 Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 the wireless access point with which the personal communication device is in communication." (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5---6.) We agree with the Examiner. Lim relates to "communications between short range wireless devices." (i-f 3.) Figure 3 of Lim illustrates communication system 300 for providing registered users with communication links for short range communication devices. (i-f 44.) Lim explains that "contact list is made available to the client program of the cell phone." (i-f 56.) Furthermore, Lim explains that a user can initiate a conversation request using a cell phone such that "[t]he request of a conversation is then relayed to the targeted remote contact (e.g., a request from a device 116 in a cell 112 of a first zone 110 ... ). " (Id.) Because Lim explains that a contact list is made available to device 116 in first zone 110, Lim teaches or suggests the limitation "automatically transmitting from the BMS server to the personal communication ... information ... wherein the first zone is associated with the wireless access point with which the personal communication device is in communication." Appellants argue that "[w]hile the inspector [of Lai] may use an access point to access the quality assurance server, there is no disclosure that the type of facility information sent to the inspector depends on the location of the access point" but "the claims recite that the BMS server sends device information to the personal communication device based on the location of the access point with which the personal communication device is in communication." (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2.) Similarly, Appellants argue that "these paragraphs [55 and 56] of Lim only relate to a cell phone user communicating with people on a contact list, wherein a call may be 6 Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 relayed from one zone to another" and accordingly, "this is not a disclosure of 'automatically transmitting ... commissioning information relating to a plurality of devices located in a first zone, wherein the first zone is associated with the wireless access point with which the personal communication device is in communication.'" (Reply Br. 2 (internal citations omitted).) However, the Examiner cited Lim for teaching the limitation "automatically transmitting from the BMS server to the personal communication ... information ... wherein the first zone is associated with the wireless access point with which the personal communication device is in communication" (Final Act. 4) and cited Lai for teaching the limitation "commissioning information relating to a plurality of devices" (Final Act. 5). Moreover, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Lim and Lai, and Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lim and Lai would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "automatically transmitting from the BMS server to the personal communication ... information ... wherein the first zone is associated with the wireless access point with which the personal communication device is in communication." We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner improperly combined Lim and Lai. The Examiner acknowledged that Lim does not disclose the limitation "commissioning information ... integrates the utilities in a building" and therefore, relied on the communications system of Lai for facility management, in which inspectors enter information into a portable 7 Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 inspection device and transmits such information to a central computer system. (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine Lim and Lai because "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to automatically route and monitor work orders based on personnel information." (Id.) We agree with the Examiner. Lai explains that "[t]he computerized work order system includes a staff management component" and that "[t]his integration allows work orders to be automatically assigned to the appropriate person for the repair, taking into account the availability and specialty of repair personnel as determined by the staff management component." (i-f 19.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the computer systems of Lai for performing facility management tasks, including a staff management system, with the communication device of Lim, would improve Lim by providing the advantage of routing and monitoring work orders based on personnel information to account for availability and specialty of repair personnel. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 5) that modifying Lim to incorporate the computer systems of Lai would have been obvious. Appellants argue that "the claimed subject matter relates to an access point, a personal communication device that is in communication with the access point, and a BMS server that sends commissioning information about 8 Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 devices that are in the zone of the access point" and "[ s ]ince the claims have nothing to do with personnel information, any rationale that depends on personnel information is not on point, such rationale must be dismissed, and any obviousness conclusions based on that rationale are in error." (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3.) Contrary to Appellants' argument, the combination of Lim and Lai is based on the improvement of a similar device in the same way as the prior art. Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Lim and Lai to reject independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 5, 6, 9, and 11-13 depend from independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 15 and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 19, as well as dependent claim 16, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). 9 Appeal2014-005222 Application 12/963,722 AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation