The Chamberlain Group, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020000939 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
15/654,187 07/19/2017 Jordan Ari Farber 5569-141338-US 1604
150733 7590 07/01/2021
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP/CGI
120 South LaSalle Street
Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
TANG, SON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORDAN ARI FARBER,
JEREMY EUGENE JENKINS,
DILIP JAGJIVAN PATE, and
JOHN STEVEN SCALETTA

Appeal 2020-000939
Application 15/654,187
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, 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, 4–11, 13, 14, 16–23, 25 and 28–
40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

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 The Chamberlain
Group, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000939
Application 15/654,187
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to
A movable barrier operator transmits a message to a
remote peripheral platform and, upon determining that the
remote peripheral platform is presently able to carry out a given
functionality, responsively permits a particular function to be
carried out by the movable barrier operator. Conversely, upon
determining that it cannot be ascertained whether the remote
peripheral platform is presently able to carry out the given
functionality, the movable barrier operator responsively prevents
the movable barrier operator from carrying out the particular
function.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
at a movable barrier operator:
monitoring, via a transceiver of the movable barrier
operator, for both a learn-mode transmission from a remote
control and a pairing-mode transmission from a remote
peripheral platform, wherein monitoring includes switching the
transceiver between a first reception band associated with the
learn-mode transmission and a different, second reception band
associated with the pairing-mode transmission;
receiving the pairing-mode transmission from the remote
peripheral platform;
establishing a relationship with the remote peripheral
platform upon receipt of the pairing-mode transmission;
wirelessly transmitting a message from the transceiver of
the movable barrier operator to the remote peripheral platform;
upon determining that the remote peripheral platform is
presently able to carry out a given functionality, responsively
permitting a particular function to be carried out by the
movable barrier operator;
upon being unable to determine whether the remote
peripheral platform is presently able to carry out the given
Appeal 2020-000939
Application 15/654,187
3
functionality, responsively preventing the movable barrier
operator from carrying out the particular function; and
wherein the remote peripheral platform comprises an
announcing device.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCE(S)
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Mays US 6,634,408 B2 Oct. 21, 2003
Brundula US 2006/0158339 A1 July 20, 2006
Rodriguez US 2008/0224886 A1 Sept. 18, 2008

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13, 14, 16–23, 25, and 28–
40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and
Brundula. Final Act. 2–13.
OPINION
Appellant argues
The Office Action asserts that Mays’ remote controls 46, 48 are
the remote control of claim 1 and the control unit 38 is the remote
peripheral platform of claim 1. (See, e.g., Office Action, page 7,
“receiving a transmission from a remote peripheral platform (38).”) The
Office Action further asserts that Mays' remote controls 46, 48 are the
devices that are checked for ability to perform a function. . . . But claim
1 calls for determining whether the remote peripheral platform (the
control unit 38) is able to carry out a given functionality, not the remote
control (remote control 46, 48).
Appeal Br. 16.
In the Final Action, the Examiner identifies Mays’ control unit 38 as
the remote peripheral platform for some limitations of claim 1 and Mays’
Appeal 2020-000939
Application 15/654,187
4
remote units 46 and 48 as the remote peripheral platform for other
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 7–8. We agree with Appellant then it is at
least unclear how the Examiner applies Mays’ to the limitations of claim 1.
See, e.g., Final Act. 7; Ans. 5. Consequently, we are constrained by the
record before us to find that the Examiner erred in determining that the
combination of Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula renders obvious Appellant’s
claim 1. If prosecution reopens, we leave it to the Examiner to determine
whether Mays’ remote units 46 and 48 teach the claimed remote peripheral
platform (similar to the discussion about claim 13 below).
Regarding claim 13, the Examiner consistently identifies Mays’
remote units 46 and 48 as the remote peripheral platform for claim 13 (Final
Act. 2–3) so this argument is not persuasive with respect to claim 13.
Appellant also argues that Rodriguez fails to teach or suggest the claimed
monitoring, via a transceiver of the movable barrier operator, for both a
learn-mode transmission from a remote control and a pairing-mode
transmission from a remote peripheral platform, wherein monitoring
includes switching the transceiver between a first reception band associated
with the learn-mode transmission and a different, second reception band
associated with the pairing-mode transmission. Appeal Br. 13–17. In
particular, Appellant contends that Rodriguez only generally teaches
multiple antennas to monitor multiple reception bands. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant also contends that because Rodriguez fails to teach or suggest the
claimed learning mode transmission of one reception band and a pairing
mode transmission of a second reception band, Rodriguez also fails to teach
monitoring for these transmissions. Appeal Br 15.
The Examiner, however, finds that Rodriguez teaches the limitations.
According to the Examiner, these names are obvious as a matter of design
Appeal 2020-000939
Application 15/654,187
5
choice based on the teaching of Rodriguez. Ans. 3–4. Specifically, the
Examiner reasons
Since, applicant never claimed any particular reason or purpose
to specifically named the learn-mode transmission or the pairing-
mode transmission to the particular remote devices, that having
any effective in communication with the remote control and that
remote peripheral platform. Thus, one having ordinary skill in
the art would name the reception signal from the remote control
and remote peripheral platform any appropriate name, including
the learn-mode and pairing-mode transmissions.
Ans. 4.
As Appellant points out, the Specification describes “learning is based
upon a one-way approach to communications whereas pairing relies upon a
two-way communications ability between the movable barrier operator and
the remote platform.” Spec. ¶ 44. Rodriguez similarly teaches a transceiver
including a local antenna and network antenna, each operating at different
frequency values. Rodriguez ¶ 23. Rodriguez describes the local antenna is
configured to primarily receives commands, whereas the network antenna is
configured to transmit and receive various commands. Rodriguez ¶ 23. In
other words, Rodrigues teaches a local antenna for one-way transmissions
and a network antenna for two-way transmission. This is consistent with the
Specification. As such, we are not persuaded that Rodrigues fails to teach
the claimed learning and pairing mode transmissions and monitoring for
those transmissions. Appellant do not present additional arguments as to
the patentability of claim 13 and, therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Mays, Rodriguez,
and Brundula renders Appellant’s claim 13 obvious.
With respect to independent claims 25 and 33, Appellant argues that
Brundula fails to teach “not effect closing the barrier where the announcing
Appeal 2020-000939
Application 15/654,187
6
device is presently not able to announce the warning in response to the
command.” Appeal Br 18. In particular, Appellant argues
Brundula discloses a garage door opener having an alarm for
warning people that the associated garage door is going to close.
Brundula does not address what would happen if its alarm fails.
At most, Brundula discloses that when its systems batteries get
low, “alarms also go off but with different intensities to warn the
user to change the system batteries.” (Paragraph [0011].)
Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner responds
Brundula teaches the alarm is immediately generated
when effect closing barrier command is received at the
controller, and if the door open too long and not closing
command signal to do so, the controller calls a phone number, if
the phone module is part of the system, or if the command is
sensed to be open the door command (e.g. not effect closing the
barrier command) the announcing device is not immediately
generated alarm, rather waits a specified time then generated
alarm or make a phone call to a specified phone number. That,
the warning is configured to not generate alarm in response to
the door open command.
Ans. 6–7.
We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 25 and 33.
Claims 25 and 33 expressly recite closing or not closing a barrier (in
response to a timer to close signal or remote close signal) based on whether
the announcing device is able to announce a warning. We disagree that
Brundula’s not producing an alarm in response to an open door command
teaches the claimed not closing a barrier when an announcing device is not
able to announce a warning. Based on the record before us, the Examiner
fails to sufficiently identify how the combination of Mays, Rodriguez, and
Brundula teaches the limitations of claims 25 and 33 and, as such, we are
Appeal 2020-000939
Application 15/654,187
7
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 25 and 33 as obvious
over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we sustain the rejection of
claims 13, 14, and 16–23 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and
Brundula, but do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–11, 25, and 28–
40 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16–23 under 35 U.S.C.
103 as unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula is affirmed, but
the rejection of 1, 2, 4–11, 25, and 28–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mays, Rodriguez, and Brundula is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–11,
13, 14, 16–
23, 25, 28–
40
103 Mays, Rodriguez,
Brundula
13, 14, 16–
23
1, 2, 4–11,
25, 28–40

AFFIRMED-IN-PART