Ex Parte Poojary et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2016

12963722 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016)

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