Ex Parte Amundson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13247618 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/247,618 09/28/2011 John B. Amundson H0005444C2-1161.1140103 6236
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
KASENGE, CHARLES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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 @ honey well, com
Honeywell.USPTO@STWiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN B. AMUNDSON, GABRIEL A. BERGMAN,
and BRENT D. VICK
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,6181
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,618
Invention
The claims are directed to a programmable controller with a user
interface having a separate schedule review mode and separate editing mode.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. An HVAC controller comprising:
a touch screen display;
a memory for storing a programmable schedule, the
programmable schedule defined by two or more programmable
schedule parameters;
a controller coupled to the touch screen display and the
memory, the controller configured to:
display a schedule review button on the touch screen
display;
enter a schedule review mode when the schedule review
button is touched by a user, wherein while in the schedule review
mode, one or more of the programmable schedule parameters of
the programmable schedule are displayed on the touch screen
display, and a user is permitting viewing access only and not
permitting editing access to one or more of the programmable
schedule parameters of the programmable schedule that are
displayed on the touch screen display and not displaying
parameter change touch regions usedfor editing the one or more
of the programmable schedule parameters of the programmable
schedule',
display a single schedule editing button on the touch
screen display; and
enter a schedule editing mode in response to the single
schedule editing mode button being is touched by a user, wherein
2
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,618
while in the schedule editing mode, a user is permitted editing
access to one or more of the programmable schedule parameters
of the programmable schedule by touching one or more
parameter change touch regions displayed on the touch screen
display, resulting in one or more changeable programmable
schedule parameters.
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of
Amundson. Final Act. 2—3.
Claims 1—10 and 12—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Smith. Id. at 4—8.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith and Rosen. Id. at 9.
2 The Examiner’s Final Action incorrectly cites Rosen’s publication number
as 2004/0245352. Final Act. 9. Appellants point out (App. Br. 24), and the
Examiner confirms (Ans. 12), that the correct publication number for Rosen
is 2003/0142121. Accordingly, we consider this harmless error.
Rosen2
Smith
Amundson et al.
US 2003/0142121 Al July 31, 2003
US 2004/0245352 Al Dec. 9, 2004
US 8,239,067 B2 Aug. 7, 2012
REJECTIONS
3
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,618
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—9), the findings and reasons set forth in the
Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and the findings and the reasons set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 8—19). We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and
argument for emphasis as follows.
Double Patenting: Claims 1—20
Initially, we observe that Appellants present no arguments on appeal
(App. Br. 25) regarding the Examiner’s nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 1—20 (see Final Act. 2—3). We note that
arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Therefore, we pro forma affirm the Examiner’s nonstatutory obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of claims 1—20.
Anticipation: Independent Claims 1, 12, and 19
“a schedule review mode ”
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Smith discloses:
entering] a schedule review mode when the schedule review
button is touched by a user, wherein... a user is permitt[ed]
viewing access only and not permitt[ed] editing access to one or
more of the programmable schedule parameters of the
programmable schedule that are displayed on the touch screen
display and not displaying parameter change touch regions used
4
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,618
for editing the one or more of the programmable schedule
parameters of the programmable schedule,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12 and 19. App. Br. 8—
24; Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants argue Smith’s home screen does
not disclose a review mode because “[w]hile the currently active period and
currently active set [-] point are displayed on the home screen, one skilled in
the art would not consider displaying the currently active period and
currently active set[-]point to be a ‘schedule review mode.’” Reply Br. 2.
Additionally, Appellants argue Smith’s “home screen . . . does not display a
schedule review button on the touch screen display, and thus cannot disclose
entering a schedule review mode.” App. Br. 9—10 (citing Smith Fig. 4A,
|| 44-45) (emphasis omitted). Moreover, Appellants argue that Smith’s
review mode, accessed using review icon 164 from the program screen,
would “permit[] editing access and [would] display parameter change touch
regions.” App. Br. 10-13 (citing Smith Fig. 4C, || 53—57).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 13),
and we agree, Smith teaches a programmable thermostat with a “HOME
SCREEN 120” that is accessed “when the HOME icon is touched” (Smith
144, Figs. 4A-4B). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Smith’s
home screen allows a user to review scheduled programed parameters, such
as “temperature set-point,” without allowing parameter editing. Ans. 11—12
(citing Smith Fig. 4A); Adv. Act. 2.
Appellants’ argument that “displaying the currently active period and
currently active set[-]point” on Smith’s home screen does not allow “the
user to review the schedule” (Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted)) is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claimed schedule review
mode requires that “one or more of the programmable schedule parameters
5
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,618
of the programmable schedule that are displayed” and Smith’s home screen
displays currently scheduled settings for its programmable thermostat, i.e.,
programmable schedule parameters, as required by the claims. In particular,
Smith’s home screen displays a “current set-point temperature icon 132
(‘70° F.’),” providing a review of the schedule’s currently programmed
temperature set-point, and further displays “period of day icons 128
(‘MORN’),” providing a review of the schedule’s current period. Smith
145, Fig. 4A. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Smith’s home screen provides a schedule review mode because currently
scheduled settings are displayed. Ans. 11—12, Adv. Act. 2.
Additionally, Appellants’ argument that Smith’s home screen does not
provide a review icon (App. Br. 9—10 (citing Smith Fig. 4A)) does not
address the Examiner’s finding that Smith’s temporary screen includes home
icon 154 to access Smith’s home screen for schedule review (Ans. 11—12
(citing Smith 4B); Adv. Act. 2). Further, Appellants’ argument that the
review mode accessed from Smith’s program screen permits editing (App.
Br. 10—13 (citing Smith 4C)) does not address the Examiner’s finding that
Smith’s home screen is a review mode which does not permit editing (Ans.
11—12 (citing Smith 4A); Adv. Act. 2). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding Smith discloses the disputed limitation.
“schedule editing ”
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in finding Smith discloses
“displaying] a single schedule editing button on the touch screen display . . .
in the schedule editing mode, a user is permitted editing access to one or
more of the programmable schedule parameters of the programmable
schedule,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12 and 19.
6
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,618
App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically, Appellants argue Smith’s
temporary “override [of] the schedule during a temporary hold (performed
from the temporary screen 140)” does not disclose a schedule editing mode
because “instituting a temporary hold to temporarily override a programmed
schedule, does not edit the schedule.” Reply Br. 2—3 (emphasis omitted);
App. Br. 13. Additionally, Appellants argue “the electro-mechanical
PROGRAM button 112 of Smith, which is spaced from the display,” is not a
touch screen button. App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 15-
lb), and we agree, Smith’s “TEMPORARY SCREEN 140 allows the user to
change the target temperature,” i.e., the scheduled set-point temperature can
be changed (Smith || 47-48, Fig. 4B). The Examiner further finds (Adv.
Act. 2; Ans. 15—16), and we agree, Smith’s temporary screen “is accessed
from the HOME level when the user touches the room temperature icon
(FIG. 4A, ref. num. 130)” (Smith || 47^48).
Appellants’ argument that a temporary change to a schedule “cannot
be seen to actually edit the schedule” (Reply Br. 2—3 (emphasis omitted);
App. Br. 13) is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim
does not preclude temporary schedule editing from the meaning of schedule
editing. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide an explicit
definition of a schedule editing mode, and in particular does not preclude
temporary schedule editing from the meaning of schedule editing. Because
neither the claim nor the Specification preclude temporary schedule editing
from the meaning of schedule editing, we agree with the Examiner’s broad,
but reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, that Smith’s
7
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,618
“temporary] change (or override) [of] a schedule . . . edit[s] the schedule.”
Ans. 15—16.
Additionally, Appellants’ argument that Smith’s program button 112
is not a touch screen button (App. Br. 13) does not address the Examiner’s
finding that Smith’s room temperature icon 130 is a touch screen button
used to access scheduled temperature editing (Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 15—16).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Smith
discloses “display a single schedule editing button on the touch screen
display ... in the schedule editing mode, a user is permitted editing access to
one or more of the programmable schedule parameters of the programmable
schedule,” within the meaning of claims 1, 12, and 19.
Obviousness: Claim 11
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Smith and
Rosen in rejecting claim 11 because “there would appear to be no
motivation, suggestion or other reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Smith in view of Rosen.” App. Br. 24. Appellants’ argument is
without elaboration and, accordingly, we are not persuaded. Moreover,
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s stated motivation for the
combination, i.e., “so the thermostat can conveniently display local
temperature information.” Final Act. 9. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner improperly combined Smith and Rosen.
Remaining Claims 2—10, 13—18, and 20
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2—
10, 13—18, and 20. See App. Br. 8—24. For the reasons set forth above,
8
Appeal 2016-005397
Application 13/247,618
therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims.
See also In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude
that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to
articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to
be treated separately.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 2-10, 13-18, and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 1—20.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections of claims
1-10 and 12-20.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 11.
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).
AFFIRMED
9