Ex Parte Laflamme et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12619036 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/619,036 11/16/2009
28291 7590 08/31/2016
SMART & BIGGAR
1000 DE LA GAUCHETIERE ST. W.
SUITE 3300
MONTREAL, QC H3B 4W5
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benoit LAFLAMME
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.
89003-86C 7882
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
USPTO.MTL@SMART-BIGGAR.CA
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENOIT LAFLAMME, MICHEL BEGIN,
and CHRISTIAN BROCHU
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 26-45. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to control systems for bathing
units, including bathing unit control systems providing multimedia
functionality, telephone functionality, and/or data network access
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Gecko Alliance Group
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
functionality to the users of the bathing units. Spec. 1, 11. 22-25. Claim 26
is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
26. A control system for controlling a set of bathing unit
components in a bathing unit system, the set of bathing unit
components including a heating module, said control system
compnsmg:
a) a bathing unit controller configured for issuing signals
for controlling the set of bathing unit components in the bathing
unit system;
b) a multimedia source interface in communication with
said bathing unit controller, said multimedia source interface
including a processor programmed for enabling access by the
bathing unit controller to media content stored on a set of
external media storage sources, the set of external media
storage sources including at least one external media storage
source;
c) a bathing control interface in communication with said
bathing unit controller, the bathing control interface being
configured for communicating with said multimedia source
interface through said bathing unit controller, said bathing
control interface having a display unit and being configured for:
i) presenting on the display unit a first set of input
options to a user of the bathing unit system for enabling a
user to enter information indicative of a desired change in
a certain operational setting of the bathing unit; and
ii) presenting on the display unit a second set of
input options to a user of the bathing unit system for
enabling a user to enter a media control command to
specify an external media storage source from the set of
external media storage sources;
d) said bathing unit controller including a processor
programmed for processing a specific media control command
entered by the user on the bathing control interface and
specifying a specific external media storage source from the set
of external media storage sources accessible by the multimedia
source interface for:
2
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
i) accessing media content on the specific external
media storage source through the multimedia source
interface; and
ii) displaying on the display unit of the bathing
control interface a listing of media elements stored on the
specific external media storage source for enabling the
user to enter a further media control command to specify
a media element from the listing of media elements, the
elements in the listing of media elements stored on the
specific external media source including at least one
element selected from the set consisting of audio album
titles, song titles, artist names, movie titles and written
media identifiers, wherein selection by the user of a
specific media element from the displayed listing of
media elements causes media content associated with the
specific media element to be conveyed to the user
through an output device in communication with the
bathing unit controller.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 26-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Laflamme et al. (US
6,874,175 B2; issued Apr. 5, 2005) (hereinafter "Laflamme"), Mommerency
et al. (US 200710172092 Al; published July 26, 2007) (hereinafter
"Mommerency"), and Trotabas (US 2006/0039263 Al; published Feb. 23,
2006).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 39-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Laflamme, Wall et al. (US
2003/0156053 Al; Aug. 21, 2003) (hereinafter "Wall"), and Clark et al. (US
2002/0035403 Al; published Mar. 21, 2002) (hereinafter "Clark").
3
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the September 30, 2013 Non-Final Office Action (Non-
Final Act. 2-22) and (2) the November 6, 2014 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-
7). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments
below for emphasis.
(1) Accessing media content
Appellants argue that the combination of Laflamme, Mommerency,
and Trotabas fails to teach or suggest "accessing media content," as recited
in claim 26. App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants argue the combination,
and Laflamme in particular, instead teaches merely turning "'ON' or 'OFF"'
associated audio and/ or video equipment, rather than teaching accessing the
media content itself stored on the equipment. App. Br. 11, 15 (citing
Laflamme 11 :5-20, 10:40--49, Fig. 7) (arguing Laflamme "merely suggest[s]
that the processing unit 92 has an interface for controlling actuators
associated with comfort components, wherein the components may include
audio equipment and/or video equipment," to tum them "ON" or "OFF").
The Examiner finds the combination teaches accessing media content.
Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Laflamme teaches the processing unit is
capable of processing signals from the user interface for causing desired
changes. Id. (citing Laflamme 11 :9-20). As to Mommerency, the Examiner
finds it teaches providing spas with access to digital music and video files so
4
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
a user can import desired media files for playing at the spa. Id. (citing
Mommerency i-f 2); see also Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Mommerency i-fi-19--10,
14--15).
We agree with the Examiner and find the combination teaches and
suggests accessing media content. For example, we find Laflamme teaches
a processing unit that can process signals from a user interface to cause
desired changes. Laflamme 11: 9-20. We also agree with the Examiner and
find Mommerency teaches providing spas with access to media files that can
be imported and played at the spa. Mommerency i-fi-12, 9--10, 14--15. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that the combination teaches merely
turning "ON" or "OFF" media equipment via actuators, including because
such an argument incorrectly focuses on the references individually without
persuasively addressing how one of ordinary skill would view the combined
teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (finding each reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.").
(2) Access by the bathing unit controller to media content
Appellants argue the combination fails to teach or suggest that the
"access [is] by the bathing unit controller to [the] media content," as recited
in claim 26. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants argue that although the
combination may teach "the controller accessing the audio and video
equipment, media content stored on such equipment is not accessed by the
controller ... [-] the media content is only accessed by the audio and video
equipment." Id. at 11, 15 (citing Laflamme 11:9-20; 10:20--49). Appellants
contend "'[a]ccessing' media content would imply that the processing unit
... receives or otherwise directly manipulates the specific media content
5
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
stored on the media storage device," which is not taught in Laflamme. App.
Br. 15. According to Appellants, Laflamme teaches the processor can
merely control actuators and receive signals from sensors in the bathing unit
system. Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Laflamme, Mommerency, and
Trotabas teaches or suggests this disputed limitation. See Ans. 3--4.
Specifically, the Examiner relies on the above findings for accessing media
content for finding that the combination of Laflamme, Mommerency, and
Trotabas teaches or suggests that the bathing unit controller accesses the
media content. See Ans. 4.
In accordance with our above findings, we agree with the Examiner
and find the combination teaches or suggests this disputed limitation. See
Laflamme 11 :9--20 (teaching a processing unit that can process signals from
a user interface to cause desired changes); Mommerency i-fi-12 (teaching
providing spas with access to media files that can be imported and played at
the spa), 9--10, 14--15. Appellants' argument again incorrectly focuses on
the references individually without persuasively addressing how one of
ordinary skill would view the combined teachings. See Merck, 800 F .2d at
1097.
(3) Listing of media elements
Appellants argue the combination fails to teach or suggest that the
bathing control interface can display a listing of media elements stored on an
external media storage source for enabling a user to enter a media control
command to specify a media element from the listing in accordance with
claim 26. See App. Br. 11, 15. As to Mommerency, Appellants argue that
although it "suggests that both spa functions and digital music playing
6
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
function[ s] may be controlled through a same input device, the only
information regarding the control of the media player" concerns common
input options such as "PLAY " "PA USE/STOP " "NEXT " "PREV " and
' ' ' ' '
"SHUFFLE," with no mention of having access to a listing of media on an
external source. App. Br. 12-13 (citing Mommerency i-f 14). As to
Trotabas, Appellants argue that although it "may suggest a user interface
enabling the user to navigate through the music files, this navigation is
performed using the interface of the audio system itself and not with any
other system within which the audio system may be installed." App. Br. 13.
Appellants, thus, contend that the combination fails to teach this disputed
limitation.
The Examiner finds the combination teaches or suggests this disputed
limitation. Ans. 3--4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Mommerency
teaches "a set of external media storage sources ... and a display for
displaying a specific media control command that is displayed to a user
through an output device." Ans. 3 (citing Mommerency i-fi-19-10, 14--15).
As to Trotabas, the Examiner finds it teaches a media control interface that
allows a selection of which songs are to be played. See Ans. 4 (citing
Trotabas i-fi-124 ("[T]he entire audio system 10 may function as a digital
music jukebox and library[, and] ... the base unit may access the list of
music files stored in the digital media player and offer a user interface on the
display 29, enabling the user to navigate through the music files."), 25). The
Examiner, thus, finds the combined teachings teach or suggest this disputed
limitation. Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we agree with the Examiner that Mommerency teaches or
7
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
suggests (i) access to external media sources, (ii) a bathing control interface
that can display media control commands for a user's selection, and (iii) that
both spa functions and digital music playing functions may be controlled
through the same input device. Mommerency i-fi-19--10, 14--15. We also
agree and find Trotabas teaches or suggests providing a list of music files for
display on a user interface to enable a user to navigate through the music
files and make a selection. Trotabas i-fi-1 24--25. We agree with the Examiner
that these combined teachings teach or suggest this disputed limitation. See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (finding the relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in light of the art's combined teachings).
(4) Hindsight
Claim 26
Appellants contend "that a person of ordinary skill in the art looking
to Laflamme, Mommerency and Trotabas, without the benefit of hindsight
afforded by the present application, would [not] arrive at the control system
claimed in claim 26." App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 8-9. Appellants argue, for
example, that a person skilled in the art considering the references of the
combination:
[W]ould arrive at the control interface of Laflamme
being provided with control inputs such as "PLAY" and the like
. . . in connection with digital music playing functions as
described in Mommerency wherein the audio/video equipment
controlled is provided with its own interface in the manner
suggested by Trotabas.
Id. Appellants, thus, contend "that the Examiner's interpretation of the cited
references uses an impermissible degree of hindsight." Id.
8
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
Based on the record evidence, we find the Examiner appropriately
combined the teachings of Laflamme, Mommerency, and Trotabas. See
Non-Final Act. 6, 8 (finding motivation to combine includes (i) integrating
the digital music player and computer in Mommerency as a comfort
component in Laflamme to enhance the spa's functionality by allowing a
user to import desired media files for playing at the spa, and (ii) modifying
the digital media player in Laflamme and Mommerency by integrating
Trotabas' teaching of a user interface to provide an interface to enhance the
user's ability to control the media device by allowing a selection of which
songs are to be played); see also In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1313-14
( CCP A 1971) ("Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill ... and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper."). We also find Appellants' assertion of
impermissible hindsight unsupported.
Claim 39
Similar as to above, Appellants contend that a person of ordinary skill
in the art looking to Laflamme, Wall, and Clark, without the benefit of
hindsight afforded by the claimed invention, would not "necessarily
combine the teachings ... in such a way as to arrive at a bathing unit control
system having a bathing unit controller" in accordance with the limitations
of claim 39. App. Br. 30-31; Reply Br. 8-9. Appellants posit that one of
ordinary skill in the art would combine Laflamme and Wall in such a way
that the web-browser interface would not be displayed on the control
interface of the bathing unit controller. Id. Appellants also argue that Clark
9
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
(i) does not cure such a deficiency, (ii) is concerned with a different problem
than the claimed invention, and (iii) Clark teaches that the web-browser
interface is provided on a remote computer rather than at the bathing unit
control interface. App. Br. 31 (citing Clark Abstract).
As above, we find the Examiner appropriately combined the teachings
of Laflamme, Wall, and Clark. See Non-Final Act. 17-18 (citing Wall
i-fi-123, 41--42; Clark i-fi-129-30, 57) (finding motivation to combine includes
(i) integrating Wall's menu interface into Laflamme's control panel "to
enable the control panel to be updatable and switchable from one
controllable device to another by using an interface accessible to a user," and
(ii) modifying Laflamme's control panel by integrating Clark's network and
browser "to allow for controlling devices remotely, which allows for a
greater range of controlling devices including a pool/spa"); see also
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d at 1313-14; In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016
( CCP A 1972) (finding it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same
purpose as that disclosed in Appellants' specification in order to support the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious). We
also find Appellants' assertion of impermissible hindsight unsupported by
record evidence.
(5) Data network
Appellants argue the combination of Laflamme, Wall, and Clark fails
to teach or suggest that the bathing unit controller accesses a data network
(i.e., a private computer network or a public computer network) so that a
user can navigate the data network using a web-browser interface displayed
on the bathing control interface, in accordance with claim 39. App. Br. 25.
According to Appellants, Wall instead teaches that a remote control can be
10
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
connected to a computer to download software for controlling different types
of devices, but "there is no suggestion ... that these devices are
interconnected through a computer (data) network nor ... that the universal
remote control ... accesses such devices through such computer (data)
network." Id. at 26 (citing Wall i-fi-16, 23). As to Clark, Appellants argue it
teaches "permitting a user to control and/or monitor the operations of the
bathing unit system from a [remote] location ... over a private or public
computer network, [however,] the web-browser interface used in Clark is
provided on a remote computing device not at the bathing unit control
interface." App. Br. 27 (citing Clark Abstract).
Appellants also assert a data network is a telecommunication network
that allows computers to exchange data over connections established
according to a protocol, rather than just being a single computer connected
to external devices, such as a keyboard. Id. at 28; Reply Br. 5---6. According
to Appellants, examples of data networks are private networks (e.g.,
Intranets) and public networks (e.g., the Internet). Id. (citing Spec. 42, 11.
17-19). Appellants, thus, contend Laflamme's processing unit 92 in
combination with the comfort components does not form a data network. Id.
at 29; see also Reply Br. 5---6 (arguing that one of ordinary skill would
understand that Laflamme' s processor is directly connected (as opposed to
via a data network) to the actuators and relays).
The Examiner finds the combination of Laflamme, Wall, and Clark
teaches or suggests this disputed limitation. Ans. 5---6; Non-Final Act. 14--18
(citing Laflamme 11:5-20, 10:3-27, 10:40-49, 9:61---65, 11:39-51; Wall
i-fi-141--42; Clark i-fi-129 (finding teaching of connecting a control system via a
11
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
private network or the Internet (a public network), 30 (finding teaching of a
web-browser).
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Laflamme, Wall,
and Clark teaches the disputed limitation. Specifically, in accordance with
our findings above, we find the combined teachings of these references -
for example, (i) Laflamme's teaching of a processing unit that can process
signals from a user interface to cause desired changes to comfort
components, (ii) Wall's teaching of a display menu of selectable items for
functions to be controlled, and (iii) Clark's teaching of connecting a control
system via a private network or the Internet (a public network) and related
use of a web-browser - teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Laflamme
11:5-20, 10:3-27, 10:40-49, 9:61-65, 11:39-51; Wall i-fi-141--42; Clark
i-fi-129-30; see also Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (finding the relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in light of the art's combined teachings).
(6) Differing claim language
Appellants argue the rejections for claims 26 and 39 should be
withdrawn because the Examiner misquotes the current claim language in
making the rejection. See App. Br. 16-17, 32-35; Reply Br. 7-8 (providing,
inter alia, claim 26 's language is "a listing of media elements stored on the
specific external media storage source" rather than "a listing of media
control commands" and claim 39's is "the web-browser interface" rather
than "the browser interface").
The Examiner responds that the rejections of claims 26 and 39 were
presented so as to address the differences between the prior art references
and how the prior art references would have been combined in such a way
12
Appeal2015-002592
Application 12/619,036
that, on the whole, the rejections address the actual claim language of claims
26 and 39. See Ans. 4--5, 7.
We agree with the Examiner that the patentability of claims 26 and 39
was addressed using the actual claim language, particularly in light of the
Examiner's Answer-to which Appellants filed a Reply-clarifying any
potential differences. Thus, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's
determination of patentability.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 26, as well as claims 27-38 which depend therefrom and for which
Appellants did not provide separate arguments for patentability. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 39, as well as claims 40-45 which
depend therefrom and for which Appellants did not provide separate
arguments for patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 26-45.
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
13