Ex Parte Frenette

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2018

11521876 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/521,876 09/15/2006
158032 7590 12/11/2018
Arent Fox LLP and Johnson Controls
1717 K Street, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephan Frenette
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.
039636.00234/FTP0013USPRI 2091
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2018 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):
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEPHAN FRENETTE
Appeal2017-007729
Application 11/521,876
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN G. NEW, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 24--43, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 1-23 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2017-007729
Application 11/521,87 6
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 24 and 33 are independent claims. Claim 24, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
24. A security system, comprising:
at least one component to be interconnected with a security
system for detecting an alarm condition;
a control panel to be interconnected with the security
system, the control panel including memory and a processor
configured to at least one of control and communicate with the
at least one component;
the memory storing a system identifier (ID) associated
with the control panel,
the memory storing connection information associated
with a remote configuration module that is located remote from
the control panel;
the processor configured to:
retrieve the connection information from the
memory and utilizing the connection information to
connect to the remote configuration module,
provide, to the remote configuration module, the
system ID and a request for configuration information;
retrieve, from the remote configuration module, the
configuration information that has been stored in
connection with the system ID; and
operate the control panel using the configuration
information.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 24--36 and 38--43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Simon et al. (US 7,183,907 B2; Feb. 27, 2007)
and Hogdahl et al. (US 2006/0003778 Al; Jan. 5, 2006).
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Simon, Hogdahl, and non-patent literature JUNIOR
2
Appeal2017-007729
Application 11/521,87 6
V3 FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL INSTALLATION & COMMISSIONING
MANUAL, Global Fire Equipment Lda. (Rev. 2.3 Sept. 17, 2005) ("Junior").
ANALYSIS
In the Final Rejection of claim 24, the Examiner finds that both
control panel 110 of Simon's alarm system and the radio device of
Hogdahl's alarm monitoring system teach the claimed control panel. Final
Act 4, 5 (referring to Hogdahl's "radio device/panel"); see Ans. 13 (stating
that the Examiner interprets the mobile device of Hogdahl as the claimed
control panel). The Examiner does not cite Simon for a teaching the of the
remote configuration module (Final Act. 4 ), but the Examiner states that
Hogdahl "discloses an alarm system and remote device comprising a sim-
card for monitoring an alarm path between a radio device/panel and an alarm
server making it possible for the radio device/panel to communicate open
path verification to the alarm server." Final Act. 5 (citing Hogdahl,
Abstract, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner then states the following regarding the
combination of Simon and Hogdahl:
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify Simon's Central
station monitoring and control panel with Hogdahl's alarm
monitoring system and remote device comprising a sim-card for
monitoring an alarm path between a radio device/panel and an
alarm server making it possible for the radio device/panel to
communicate open path verification to the alarm server in order
to provide additional security as suggested by Hogdahl.
Id. ( citing Hogdahl, Abstract, Fig. 1 ).
It is not clear from the Final Rejection how the teachings of Simon
and Hogdahl would be combined, nor is it clear how the combined teachings
of Simon and Hogdahl teach or suggest a control panel's processor
3
Appeal2017-007729
Application 11/521,87 6
configured to request and retrieve configuration information from a remote
configuration module and operate the control panel using the configuration
information. See Appeal Br. 25-31.
It is also unclear from the Answer how the Examiner contends the
combined teachings of the prior art satisfies these limitations. The Answer
states that both Simon and Hogdahl illustrate a request for configuration
information to a remote configuration module, and the Examiner states that
Hogdahl discloses a "subscriber identification card in which programming
(i.e. configuration information) is stored" partially on the mobile telephone
identification card which may be movable into the internal memory storage
device of the SIM card of the radio device's digital processing unit. Ans. 14
( citing Hogdahl ,r 33). The Answer then states that a mobile telephone with
a highly integrated circuit "allows monitoring and of surveillance circuits"
and "[ t ]he circuits can be used to set a car alarm, set the telephone to ring
when the car alarm is triggered and to transmit an alarm for instance." Id.
Further, the Answer states that "[ t ]he functions are adaptable and
programmable and are transmitted from a mobile unit by means of GSM or
other type of radio communication to a remotely/at a distance located control
unit." Id. (citing Hogdahl ,r 5). Among other things, however, as Appellants
argue (Reply Br. 6-7), paragraph 5 of Hogdahl describes a prior art
reference that is separate and distinct from Hogdahl's system-it is not clear
how that description of the prior art is intended to be combined with the
system of Hogdahl and/or Simon. See Ans. 14.
Although we generally agree with the Examiner that claim 24 is broad
when read in light of the Specification, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not provided enough clarity to establish a prima facie case of
4
Appeal2017-007729
Application 11/521,87 6
obviousness. Constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 24, nor the rejection of claims
25-32 which depend from claim 24. Further, the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 33 is substantially the same as the rejection of claim 24,
and, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 33 or claims 34--36 and 38--43 which depend therefrom. See Final
Act. 7-8.
Dependent claim 3 7 also depends from claim 3 3, but the Examiner
rejects claim 37 based on the combination of Simon, Hogdahl, and Junior.
See Final Act. 11-12. The Examiner's reliance on Junior, however, does not
cure the deficiencies from claim 33, and we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 37 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 24--43.
REVERSED
5