SUNDERMEYER, Ken et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 23, 202013104932 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/104,932 05/10/2011 Ken SUNDERMEYER 102005.024046 2219 71581 7590 04/23/2020 BakerHostetler / Comcast Cira Centre, 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/23/2020 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEN SUNDERMEYER, PAUL J. DAWES, and JIM FULKER Appeal 2019-002004 Application 13/104,932 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 12, 15, 16, 23–27, 31–40, 47–63, 88, 105, and 113–151. See Final Act. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as iControl Networks, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002004 Application 13/104,932 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a control system user interface. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a gateway configured to receive state data from a plurality of premises devices, wherein the gateway and the plurality of premises devices are located at a premises, and wherein the state data indicates a state of a premises device of the plurality of premises devices; and a sensor user interface (SUI) configured for output via a user device, wherein the SUI is based on the state data, and wherein the SUI comprises: a layout portion indicating at least a portion of the premises, a device icon corresponding to the premises device, wherein the device icon visually indicates a device type of the premises device, and wherein a position of the device icon visually indicates, relative to the layout portion, a location of the premises device, and a device state icon that is output based on a state change of the premises device and that at least partially overlays the device icon, wherein the device state icon visually indicates a current state of the premises device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Horon Bilger Hsu US 6,229,429 US 6,756,998 US 7,526,539 May 8, 2001 June 29, 2004 Apr. 28, 2009 Naidoo Kimmel Gordon Sheehy Winick Goffin US 2002/0147982 A1 US 2002/0174367 A1 US 2003/0052905 A1 US 2004/0243996 A1 US 2005/0128068 A1 US 2006/0230270 A1 Oct. 10, 2002 Nov. 21, 2002 Mar. 20, 2003 Dec. 2, 2004 June 16, 2005 Oct. 12, 2006 Appeal 2019-002004 Application 13/104,932 3 REJECTION In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1–6, 12, 15, 16, 23–27, 31–40, 47–63, 88, 105, and 113–151 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3. Claims 1–3, 6, 23–27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 53–57, 60, 88, 105, 114–118, 121–125, 128–132, 135–139, and 142–151 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, and Gordon. Final Act. 7. Claims 12, 15, 16, 39, 49, 58, 59, 61–63, 113, 119, 120, 126, 127, 133, 134, 140, and 141 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Goffin. Final Act. 14. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Bilger. Final Act. 19. Claim 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Winick. Final Act. 20. Claim 34 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Naidoo. Final Act. 20. Claims 37 and 52 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Sheehy. Final Act. 21. Claims 47, 48, 50, and 51 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, and Hsu. Final Act. 21. Appeal 2019-002004 Application 13/104,932 4 OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred. Figure 1 of Kimmel is reproduced below. Figure 1 of Kimmel illustrates a “graphics screen viewed through a security panel web page, wherein the graphics display contains a floorplan layout, with special icons overlaid on a bitmap to identify sensor points and their status.” Kimmel ¶ 20. The Examiner concludes that similar to Figure 23 of Appellant’s Specification, Kimmel teaches a graphical user interface with various icons or dots that represent different premise devices of a premises (i.e., sensors Appeal 2019-002004 Application 13/104,932 5 situated at alarm points), and when the status of the underlying device or sensor changes, a white dot, which the Examiner interprets as the claimed “device icon,” changes to a colored dot to represent the changed status, which the Examiner interprets as the “device status icon.” Ans. 4 (citing Kimmel, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 35–37, 45–53). The Examiner finds that Gordon explains that the use of overlays was well known in the art at the time of the invention. Ans. 4, 5 (citing Gordon ¶ 62). The Examiner also finds that Horon teaches the use of unique graphic icons to visually indicate a premise device. Ans. 5 (citing Horon, 7:45–8:1). Appellant argues that the cited portions of Kimmel do not teach “a device icon corresponding to the premises device, wherein the device icon visually indicates a device type of the premises device” and “a device state icon that is output based on a state change of the premises device and that at least partially overlays the device icon, wherein the device state icon visually indicates a current state of the premises device,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6, 7. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in pointing to Kimmel’s alarm point icons as allegedly teaching both the claimed “device icon” and the “device state icon,” thereby “denying due weight to at least some of those limitations.” Appeal Br. 5, 6; Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner explains that in Kimmel, when the status of the underlying device or sensor changes, the white dot (i.e., the “device icon”) changes to a colored dot to represent the changed status (i.e., the “device status icon”). Ans. 4. The Examiner does not deny due weight to any claim limitations, but rather, explicitly explains how Kimmel teaches both a device icon and a device status icon. Id. We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gordon demonstrates the use of Appeal 2019-002004 Application 13/104,932 6 overlays for icons, and how an object can be altered from one state to another. Gordon ¶ 62. Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Horon teaches the use of unique graphic icons to visually indicate a premise device because Horon explains that “different device images” can correspond to “different types of devices.” Horon, 7:45–8:1; Fig. 6. Appellant does not appear to dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to what Gordon or Horon teach, individually or in combination. See Reply Br. 1–5. Thus, we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner is denying weight or ignoring claim limitations by relying on various teachings of Kimmel’s Figure 1 and associated descriptions to teach the device icon and device state icon, as claimed. Rather, as explained herein and in the Answer, which we agree with and adopt, the Examiner has explained in detail how the combination of Kimmel, Gordon, and Horon teaches the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 3–5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under § 103. Regarding the remaining pending claims, Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments with particularity, or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for claim 1. See generally Appeal Br. 9–11. Therefore, we sustain the § 103 rejections of those claims over the various combinations of references, as shown in the Decision Summary below. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. Appeal 2019-002004 Application 13/104,932 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6, 23– 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 53–57, 60, 88,105, 114–118, 121–125, 128–132, 135–139, 142–151 103 Kimmel, Horon, and Gordon 1–3, 6, 23– 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 53–57, 60, 88,105, 114–118, 121–125, 128–132, 135–139, 142–151 12, 15, 16, 39, 49, 58, 59, 61–63, 113, 119, 120, 126, 127, 133, 134, 140, 141 103 Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, Goffin 12, 15, 16, 39, 49, 58, 59, 61–63, 113, 119, 120, 126, 127, 133, 134, 140, 141 4, 5 103 Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, Bilger 4, 5 33 103 Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, Winick 33 34 103 Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, Naidoo 34 37, 52 103 Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, Sheehy 37, 52 47, 48, 50, 51 103 Kimmel, Horon, Gordon, Hsu 47, 48, 50, 51 Overall Outcome: 1–6, 12, 15, 16, 23– 27, 31–40, 47–63, 88, 105, 113– 151 Appeal 2019-002004 Application 13/104,932 8 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation