Ex Parte Goodman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

13009236 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/009,236 01119/2011 E. Carl Goodman
24247 7590 08/17/2016
TRASKBRITT, P.C.
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110
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.
2986-Pl0009US 1378
EXAMINER
MEKHAEIL, SHIREF M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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):
USPTOMail@traskbritt.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte E. CARL GOODMAN and DUANE 0. HALL
Appeal2014-008695
Application 13/009,236
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
E. Carl Goodman and Duane 0. Hall (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 11 and 12 have been cancelled, and claims 10 and 13-20 have been
withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br. 2 and 17 (filed February 13,
2014).
Appeal2014-008695
Application 13/009,236
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system for monitoring automatic doors.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A monitoring system for automatic doors, comprising:
at least one input device configured to sense at least one
characteristic of at least one operational parameter of an
automatic door system and output a signal in response thereto;
a door system controller coupled to the at least one input
device and configured to receive the signal;
at least one monitor display configured to request
information representative of the at least one operational
parameter characteristic from the door system controller
substantially continuously and display the information, the at
least one monitor display comprising a first interface operatively
coupled to the door system controller and at least another
interface; and
at least one remote display device operatively coupled to
the at least another interface of the at least one monitor display,
the at least one remote display device being configured to request
information representative of the at least one operational
parameter characteristic from the at least one monitor display.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Banta
Arasaki
US 7,737,860 B2 June 15, 2010
US 2012/0060103 Al Mar. 8, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Banta and Arasaki.
2
Appeal2014-008695
Application 13/009,236
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, in part, "at least one remote display device being
configured to request information representative of the at least one
operational parameter characteristic from the at least one monitor display."
The Examiner finds that Banta discloses at least one monitor display
606 and at least one remote display device 608 configured to request
information. Final Act. 3. The Examiner takes the position that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious "to arrange the remote
display device ( 608 [of Banta]) to request information from the monitor
display device ( 606) in the same manner that the monitor display device
(606) requests information from the door system controller (602)." Id. at 3-
4. In support of this position, the Examiner notes that Banta discloses that
"more than one monitor display may operate as a master device. Id. (citing
Banta col. 11, 11. 10-16. The Examiner considers that "having the remote
display device operate also as a master would occur to a person of ordinary
skill in the art [ s Jo both the monitor display and the remote display [to]
receive updated information to allow for the monitor display to possess the
most current information and display it." Id. (citing Banta, col. 3, 11. 53-56,
where "the information or description or indicia thereof, may be displayed in
the monitor display when operating as either master or slave"). The
Examiner concludes that having "the remote display device further down in
the communication line where the request of information is first made
through the monitor display device would only be a duplication of the
process that the monitor display device is already following in the reference
Banta." Id. at 5.
3
Appeal2014-008695
Application 13/009,236
Appellants assert that "the remote display device 608 taught in Banta
is not 'configured to request information' from the monitor display 606, as
required by claim 1, because the remote display device 608 is a master
device controlling the monitor display 606." Appeal Br. 8 (citing Banta, col.
8, 11. 26-30). Appellants argue that having both the monitor display and the
remote display device operate as a master would not occur to a person of
ordinary skill in the art because "Banta's teaching that 'the information still
passes through the monitor display while it is in the slave mode without
interference,'" is insufficient to "motivate modification of the network
configuration and master/slave relationships because it merely describes and
supports those configurations and relationships." Id. at 10 (citing MPEP
§§ 2143.01 (III) & (IV)).
Appellants also argue that although Banta discloses that more than
one monitor display may operate as a master device, "this teaching applies
only when there is no network or the remote display device is not connected
to the network." Appeal Br. 10 (citing Banta, col. 11, lines 6-11 ).
Appellants assert that "[ w ]hen the remote display device is connected to the
network, all the monitor displays operate in slave mode." Id. (citing Banta,
col. 8, 11. 23-26 and col. 10, 11. 25-34.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner's "reason for modifying
the network configuration and master/slave relationships [] 'to [enable] both
the monitor display and the remote display to receive updated information to
allow for the monitor display to possess the most current information and
display it accordingly,"' is improper because, this arrangement relates only
to the display of information, not how such information would be updated.
4
Appeal2014-008695
Application 13/009,236
See Appeal Br. 10-11 (citing Banta, col. 3, 11. 53-56). Appellants thus assert
that "both the motivation to modify network configuration and master/slave
relationships taught in Banta and the specific modification to be made
appear to have come from Applicants' disclosure, not from the prior art,
which is improper." Id. at 11.
In response, the Examiner reiterates that Banta's disclosure that "each
door system monitor display may operate as a master device," is "the
suggestion to have more than one device operate[s] as a master (which)
would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to have the monitor device as
well as the remote device operate as masters." Ans. 7 (citing Banta, col. 11,
11. 6-13). The Examiner maintains that because the remote display device
(of Banta) is enabled to request event information from the door system
controller, "the remote display device is 'configured' /enabled to request
information from the monitor device in the same manner it is
configured/enabled to request the same type of information from the door
system controller." Id. at 10. The Examiner also maintains that
one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the Banta reference
to have the remote display device request information from the
monitor device instead of the door system controller in order to
receive the information from the monitor display device after the
monitor display device have received and displayed the
information in order to ensure that the same set of information is
being displayed on both devices simultaneously.
Id. at 10-11.
Appellants reply that "Banta, when considered in its entirety, does not
teach that multiple monitor displays may operate as a master device when
connected to the same network." Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that
5
Appeal2014-008695
Application 13/009,236
there is no teaching or suggestion in Banta and Arasaki that
would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention to reconfigure the network taught in Banta such
that the monitor display 606 does not operate as a slave device,
but continuously requests information from the door system
controller 602, and the remote display device 608 does not
operate as a master device controlling the monitor display 606,
but requests information from the monitor display 606.
Id. at 2-3.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Banta discloses that
either a monitor display or a remote display device is a master, but does not
suggest that both could be masters. Specifically, the Examiner's assertion
that, "the suggestion to have more than one (monitor) device operate as a
master would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to have the monitor
device as well as the remote device operate as masters," (Answer 7) conflicts
with the disclosure of Banta, which provides that, "[i]f the monitor display
detects the presence of a remote display device coupled to the remote
display device interface, the monitor display may switch to a slave mode
configuration as shown at 710." Banta, col. 8, 11. 54--57; Fig. 7. Banta
employs this master/slave model "in order to keep the devices from trying to
communicate with the processing circuit 610 at the same time." Id. at col. 8,
11. 9-12. Banta further discloses that "[ o ]nee the master/slave relationship is
established, the direction of control is always from the master to the
slave(s)," and that "slave(s) do not communicate with the processor without
the master first giving permission to the slave(s) to communicate." Id. at
col. 8, 11. 16-19 (emphasis added). In view of this, the Examiner's position
that "the remote display device is 'configured' /enabled to request
6
Appeal2014-008695
Application 13/009,236
information from the monitor device in the same manner it is
configured/enabled to request the same type of information from the door
system controller," (Answer 10) is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Furthermore, Banta discloses that when the monitor display is
operating in a slave mode configuration, "the remote display device is
enabled to request event information from the door system controller," and
receive such event information, and that "[ t ]he monitor display may [also]
display the event information on [its own] visual display." Banta, col. 8, 11.
52----67; Fig. 7. As such, there is no apparent reason to modify Banta "to
have the remote display device request information from the monitor device
instead of the door system controller," as suggested by the Examiner,
because the monitor display device of Banta already displays the same set of
information that is being displayed on the remote display device, and the
Examiner does not adequately explain why Banta's existing display of
information is insufficient. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-9 is
not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Banta and Arasaki is reversed.
REVERSED
7