Ex Parte Bayfus

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

13684539 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 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.
13/684,539 11/25/2012 Eliyahu Bayfus 2233SHB-US 8604
32964 7590 03/17/2017
DEKEL PATENT LTD., DAVID KLEIN
BEIT HAROF'IM
18 MENUHA VENAHALA STREET, ROOM 27
REHOVOT, 76209
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
AZAD, MD ABUL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2017 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 ELIYAHU BAYFUS
Appeal 2016-006952
Application 13/684,539
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-006952
Application 13/684,539
Introduction
Appellant describes the invention as relating “generally to sensors and
control circuitry for heat-transfer electrical appliances, such as but not
limited to, refrigerators and air conditioners, and more specifically to an
external electronic accessory that is connected between the sensors and the
control circuitry of the appliance and provides a Sabbath mode of
operation.” Spec. 1 (Field of the Invention).
Claim 1 is representative:
1. An apparatus comprising:
an external electronic accessory connectable between one
or more sensors and control circuitry of a heat-transfer
electrical appliance, said external electronic accessory
comprising a processor that selectively disconnects said one or
more sensors from said control circuitry and produces a preset
fake electrical signal for sending to said control circuitry.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x).
References and Rejections
Claims 1—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Broniak et al. (US 2014/0025219 Al; Jan. 23, 2014) and Daum et al. (US
2003/0066827 Al; Apr. 10, 2003). Final Act. ^U10.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 as
obvious in view of the combination of Broniak and Daum, because Broniak
does not teach claim 1 ’s requirements that “said external electronic
accessory comprising a processor that selectively disconnects said one or
more sensors from said control circuitry” and that the processor “produces a
preset fake electrical signal for sending to said control circuitry.” App. Br.
2
Appeal 2016-006952
Application 13/684,539
9-10. Appellant contends “[Broniak] never discloses disconnecting any
sensors and the citation ‘the signal encodes a selected configuration for
operation of the household device in a Sabbath mode’ has nothing to do with
a preset fake electrical signal.” Id. at 9. We find Appellant’s argument
unpersuasive.
Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation,
but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to ordinarily skilled artisans in light of the combined teachings of
those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Broniak and Daum teaches or
suggests claim l’s recited requirements according to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
See Final Act. 4—5, Ans. 10-15 (collectively citing Broniak || 3, 5, 16—19,
29, Figs. 1, 4, Daum || 12, 21, Fig. 1).
Broniak teaches an external device for controlling the functionality of
appliances in a holiday mode. See Tflf 3, 5, Fig. 1. Daum teaches an
appliance controller that receives sensor inputs from an appliance and then,
in a holiday mode, intercepts these sensor signals to prevent operation of
controlled appliance elements in a manner that would violate a religious
custom for that holiday. See ff 12, 21, Fig. 1. Thus, for example, if a
sensor in a refrigerator indicates a door is open, Daum teaches disabling
activation of door open indicators such as lights or alarms in the holiday
mode. See 126. Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan understands Daum to
teach a processor that selectively disconnects door open sensors from door
open indicator control circuitry in a holiday mode.
3
Appeal 2016-006952
Application 13/684,539
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in
finding the combination of Broniak, with its external device for controlling
appliance functionality in holiday mode, and Daum, with its appliance
controller that selectively disconnects sensors in holiday mode, teaches “an
external electronic accessory connectable between one or more sensors and
control circuitry of a heat-transfer electrical appliance, said external
electronic accessory comprising a processor that selectively disconnects said
one or more sensors from said control circuitry,” as recited by claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner that the combination of Broniak and
Daum teaches the remainder of claim 1 ’s recited requirements, viz., that the
external electronic accessory “produces a preset fake electrical signal for
sending to said control circuitry.” Appellant’s contention that “ftlhere is no
disclosure whatsoever of any fake signal” (App. Br. 10) is unpersuasive,
because Daum specifically teaches providing signals to an appliance control
circuit so as to cause deviation from normal operation during the holiday
mode. For example, Daum teaches including random delays in the control
signals or deactivating an otherwise active control signal sent to the
appliance. See ]Hf 26—28. Appellant provides no explanation for why such
signals sent in holiday mode are not “fake signals,” as recited. Appellant
does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Broniak and Daum teaches providing claim 1 ’s “fake signal,” as recited.
Furthermore, we note Appellant does not point to any evidence to
explain why the combination of teachings of would be “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex
4
Appeal 2016-006952
Application 13/684,539
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418—19 (2007)). Nor has Appellant provided objective
evidence of secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides
“operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak
Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We are
persuaded that here, the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that
“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant provides
no separate arguments for the patentability of claims 2—10 separate from
claim 1. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2—10.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—10. No
time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5