Ex Parte Greene et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

12991283 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/991,283 01/25/2011
97378 7590 08/02/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - UTC Fire and Security
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Walter Robert Greene
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.
P A-0005020-US
(U360007US)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7698
EXAMINER
HEY AM OTO, AARON H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALTER ROBERT GREENE and
JUAN ANTONIO MARTINEZ
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283 1
Technology Center 3700
Before: LISA M. GUIJT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 7, 8, 15-19, 22-25, 28, and 29. Claims 6, 9-14, 20, 21, 26, and 27 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Kidde-F enwal, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1 and 18 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An ignition control for controlling an ignition process on
a fuel-fired appliance, the appliance having a fuel burner, said
ignition control comprising:
a fuel control valve having an open position in which fuel
flows to said burner and a closed position in which fuel flow to
said burner is stopped;
an ignition source operatively associated with said burner,
a flame detection device for detecting the presence of a
flame at said burner and transmitting a flame status signal
indicating flame or no flame;
a controller for overseeing the ignition process of igniting
the fuel supplied to said burner, said controller including a
primary processor and a secondary processor:
said primary processor having functional capability to
operate the ignition device, to monitor the flame status signal
from the flame detection device and to terminate the ignition
process in the presence of a flame status signal indicating no
flame after a specified period of time following an initiation of
the ignition process; and
said secondary processor having functional capability to
monitor the flame status signal from the flame detection device
and to terminate the ignition process in the event that the primary
processor does not close the fuel control valve in the presence of
a flame status signal indicating no flame after a specified period
of time following an initiation of the ignition process;
said secondary processor operating in an idle mode,
monitor mode and lockout mode;
wherein in said idle mode, said secondary processor
monitoring at least one output of said primary processor, said
secondary processor transitioning from said idle mode to said
lockout mode in response to said at least one output of said
pnmary processor;
said secondary processor transitioning from said idle mode
to said monitoring mode upon detecting said fuel control valve
is open, said secondary processor transitioning from said
2
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283
monitoring mode to said lockout mode in response to said fuel
control valve being open, said flame status signal indicating no
flame and a fault timer expiring.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 15-19, 22-25, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable in view of Beilfuss et al. (US
4,695,246; iss. Sept. 22, 1987), Kishimoto et al. (US 2008/0092826 Al; pub.
Apr. 24, 2008), Jordan et al. (US 5,793,596; iss. Aug. 11, 1998), and Lin
(US 2006/0217268 Al; pub. Sept. 28, 2006).
ANALYSIS
As characterized by Appellants, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
"cites Beilfuss for a general disclosure of a furnace and a primary processor
that can terminate an ignition process in the presence of a flame status signal
indicating no flame after a specified period of time following an initiation of
the ignition process." Br. 4 (citing Final Act. 3). Further, Appellants state
that "Kishimoto is cited as disclosing the use of a secondary processor that
can independently shut off a fuel supply." Id. Without substantively
addressing the Examiner's findings regarding Beilfuss and Kishimoto,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred "in the interpretation and application of
Lin and Jordan." Id. Specifically, Appellants contend that "the Examiner
cites to Lin as disclosing an idle mode (see page 4 of the final Office
Action)," but, according to Appellants, "[ e ]ven if Lin somehow discloses an
idle mode, there is no disclosure of the claimed monitoring mode or lockout
mode, or the claimed transitions based on the fueled valve being open and a
flame status signal." Id. at 5.
3
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive because the arguments
mischaracterize the substance of the Examiner's rejection and the
Examiner's reliance on Lin. As cited in the Examiner's rejection (Final Act.
3--4 (citing Kishimoto ,r,r 17, 47)) and further explained in the Examiner's
Answer (Ans. 3--4 (citing Kishimoto ,r,r 17, 47, 51, 141, 142)), Kishimoto
discloses a secondary processor that monitors the primary processor and
transitions a combustion apparatus between modes of operation in response
to various signals and anomalies. E.g., Kishimoto ,r,r 17 ("the main and sub
controllers are each adapted to receive at least one signal indicating an
operational state of the combustion apparatus"), 53 ("a sub controller
communicating part adapted to receive data transmitted from the main
controller"), 54 ("an anomaly determining means adapted to determine an
anomaly based on the data transmitted from the main controller and the
signal inputted to the signal input part"). Kishimoto teaches that among the
anomalies that can be detected by the secondary processor and that trigger a
combustion stopping action is the condition of a gas solenoid valve being
open while a flame is not detected for a predetermined amount of time.
Kishimoto ,r,r 51 ( describing checks to determine the stopping of combustion
and "when an anomaly occurs in the main controller, the sub controller stops
combustion certainly"), 141 ( describing closing gas valves upon detection of
an anomaly), 142 ( explaining that an "anomaly" includes situations in which
a flame is not detected but a gas valve is open); see Ans. 3 ( citing Kishimoto
,r,r 141, 142, 151, and explaining examples of relevant disclosures in
Kishimoto, including Kishimoto's disclosures of transitions from
"monitoring to lockout" and "idle to lockout" modes). Accordingly, as
4
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283
explained by the Examiner, Kishimoto teaches or at least suggests the
claimed "idle mode" and related limitations. Ans. 3--4.
Regarding the citation to Lin, the Examiner explains that because
Kishimoto does not "explicitly name" one of its operational modes as an
"idle" mode, "Lin was [ cited] along with the mention that the Examiner
believed 'these [idle mode and fault timer] are extremely commonplace in
the fields of computing and safety."' Ans. 3 ( quoting Final Act. 3). For
example, regarding the meaning of "idle mode," the Specification discloses
that
"[ u Jpon completion of the heating cycle, indicated by loss of the
demand for heat signal, the primary processor 150 immediately
closes the gas valve 20 and, after a preprogrammed purge out
period, disables, i.e. cuts power to, the air blower 60 to terminate
air flow to the burner 4 and goes into an idle mode until a demand
for heat signal is next detected.
Spec. ,r 30. Thus, "idle mode" is a mode wherein the ignition control for the
fuel-fired appliance is idling, or waiting for a demand for a heat signal.
Claim 1, as set forth supra, specifies that the ignition control transitions
from the idle mode to a monitoring mode upon detecting the fuel control
valve is open, and that the ignition control transitions from the monitoring
mode to the lockout mode in response to the fuel control valve being open
and the flame status signal indicating no flame and a fault timer expiring.
Thus, the "idle mode" ends and the "monitoring mode" begins when the fuel
control valve is opened (which corresponds to a demand for heat signal).
Because Appellants do not substantively address the teachings of
Kishimoto, Appellants' arguments attacking Lin individually do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding the
combined teachings of the prior art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
5
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283
( CCP A 1981) ("one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references"). In other words, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning that it would have been
obvious to operate the modified Beilfuss in an idle mode that ends when the
fuel control valve is opened because idle modes are well known, or
alternatively, that it would have been obvious to modify the modified
Beilfuss device to operate in an idle mode, in view of Lin's teaching of
switching a system's operating state from an idle mode to an active mode,
for example, to "save energy." See Final Act. 3--4; see Lin, Abstract. We are
similarly unpersuaded of error by Appellants' arguments relating to Jordan.
According to Appellants, "Jordan is cited as disclosing a built in fault
timer," but, Appellants argue, "[t ]he mere recitation of 'fault timer' [in
Jordan] fails to convey the features recited in claim 1, which use a fault
timer to control transitioning from monitoring mode to lockout mode." Br.
6.
Similar to Appellants' arguments regarding Lin, Appellants'
arguments regarding Jordan mischaracterize the substance of the Examiner's
rejection and the Examiner's reliance on Jordan. As cited by the Examiner
(see Final Act. 3, Ans. 3--4), Beilfuss teaches monitoring a flame detection
signal for a predetermined period of time and closing the valve if a flame is
not detected. For example, Beilfuss teaches that each time its processor
receives a signal that a gas valve is open but no flame exists, the processor
triggers a spark pulse, and Beilfuss teaches that the processor issues a
lockout signal to close the gas valve after a predetermined time or a
predetermined number of pulses without a flame. See Beilfuss Fig. 2, 2: 15-
6
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283
52; 5:59---60 (describing signals generated by the controller that include
"Preset trial time for ignition has elapsed" and "Present number for
unsuccessful attempts at ignition has been exceeded"); 7: 12--41 ( describing
an ignition timer and transitioning to a purge state and lockout state if no
flame is detected before expiration of a predetermined time period); see also
Kishimoto ,r,r 29--30 ( describing transitioning between operating states upon
detecting anomalies for predetermined periods of time), 141-142.
Regarding the citation to Jordan, the Examiner notes that Beilfuss and
Kishimoto do not expressly describe a "fault timer," but the Examiner finds
that fault timers were commonplace at the time of Appellants' invention and
cites Jordan as evidence supporting that position. Final Act. 3. In addition,
we note that Appellants' Specification further supports the Examiner's
position, stating that timer circuits were part of "conventional practice,"
explaining that conventional controllers would lockout a gas valve when a
predetermined time period lapsed without a flame. Spec. ,r 6.
We also disagree with Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's
proposed combination of prior art is improper. Appellants argue that Lin
relates to protecting a circuit from electrostatic discharge and "is not relevant
to operational modes of a furnace or furnace ignition" such that "[i]t is not at
all clear how Lin would be combined with Beilfuss and Kishimoto." Br. 6.
Similarly, Appellants argue that Jordan relates to circuit breakers (id.) and
that "Jordan is not relevant to operational modes of a furnace" such that "[i]t
is not at all clear how Jordan would be combined with Beilfuss and
Kishimoto" (id. at 6-7).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, "[ t ]he test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
7
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283
into the structure of the primary reference; ... the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). As explained
above, the Examiner's rejection does not suggest bodily incorporation of
Lin's or Jordan's devices into the teachings of Beilfuss and Kishimoto; the
Examiner cites Lin and Jordan as additional evidence to support the
Examiner's position that the claimed idle mode and fault timer were
"extremely commonplace." Final Act. 3. Indeed, Appellants do not
substantively address what a person of ordinary skill would have understood
from the combined teachings of the prior art, and we agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, which we adopt as our own.
To the extent Appellants are arguing that Lin and/or Jordan are non-
analogous art, 2 and therefore, improperly relied on by the Examiner, we
disagree. Although Appellants' claimed invention is in a different field of
endeavor than Lin and Jordan, namely, ignition control for a fuel-fired
appliance (Spec. ,r 1) as compared to Lin's electric circuit protection system
and Jordan's circuit breaker, we determine that Lin still is reasonably
pertinent to Appellants' problem of designing modes of operation for an
operating system, including an idle mode (see Lin ,r 8 ("to provide a system
2 "Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art
is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether
the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004). "A reference is reasonably pertinent ... if it is one which, because of
the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
8
Appeal 2017-001121
Application 12/991,283
being capable of switching its operational mode according to its
functionality"), and that Jordan is reasonable pertinent to Appellants'
problem of protecting a device from a detrimental condition by using a fault
timer (see Jordan 1: 66-67 ("also described are methods of protecting a load
from an overcurrent condition"); 4:61-5:3 ("[i]fthe load current exceeds the
fault current level, the switch 14 remains fully on for a predetermined
duration, after which the switch 14 is turned off," wherein "[c]apacitor 152
establishes the fault timing associated with the circuit breaker and thus, may
be considered to provide a fault timer"). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. In support of independent
claim 18, Appellants advance substantially the same arguments as those
addressed above regarding claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 18 for the same reasons. Br. 7-11. Appellants do not separately
address dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 15-17, 19, 22-25, 28, and 29 beyond the
arguments advanced for claims 1 and 18, and we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 15-19, 22-25,
28, and 29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9