Ex Parte McCoy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

11571457 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111571,457 12/29/2006
173 7590 03/23/2016
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard A. McCoy
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.
71354-0513/US20030456 3130
EXAMINER
STEVENS, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz@whirlpool.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD A. McCOY, MATTHEW P. EBROM,
TIMOTHY M. KNEZIC, and DAVID J. KMET 1
Appeal2014-005823
Application 11/571,457
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2-37. Claim 1 has been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Whirlpool Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005823
Application 11/571,457
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to "a software architecture system
and method for operating an appliance exposing key press functionality to a
network." Spec. ,-r 2. In a disclosed embodiment, the software architecture
communicates over an internal communications network of the appliance,
which connects various physical components of the appliance. Spec. ,-r 58.
According to the Specification, the software architecture includes an
application programming interface (API), which is used to access available
function calls within the appliance. Spec. ,-r 78. Additionally, both a
physical user interface and a virtual user interface (running as a client) may
access some, if not all, the available function calls. Abstract.
Claim 2 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
2. A network control system comprising:
a software operating layer, stored in a non-transitory storage
medium, and responsive to a plurality of function calls wherein the
software operating layer uses a logical application programming
interface (API) in runtime responsive to the plurality of function calls;
an appliance having a physical user interface capable of
generating directly at least some of the function calls during the
runtime using key press routines mapped to the logical API to access
the function calls; and
a client having a virtual user interface configured to invoke at
least some of the function calls during the runtime using the logical
API to operate the appliance;
wherein the virtual user interface is configured to invoke at
least one function call that the physical user interface cannot generate
directly.
2
Appeal2014-005823
Application 11/571,457
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 2-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wacker et al. (US 6,851,621 Bl; Feb. 8, 2005) ("Wacker").
Final Act. 4--25.
Issues on Appeal2
Did the Examiner err in finding Wacker discloses a "virtual user
interface is configured to invoke at least one function call that the physical
user interface cannot generate directly," as recited in claim 2?
ANALYSIS3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wacker discloses
"wherein the virtual user interface is configured to invoke at least one
function call that the physical user interface cannot generate directly." App.
Br. 7. Appellants argue the Examiner's proffered support merely allows a
user to invoke the same function from either the physical or virtual user
interface. Id.
The Examiner finds Wacker discloses "[t]he user has two methods of
activating said function calls by way of a key press ... either remotely, i.e.,
virtual via the PDA [(personal digital assistant)] using Bluetooth or is [sic]
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional issues raised by Appellants' arguments.
3 Throughout this opinion we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
November 12, 2013 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed April 9, 2014 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on February 12, 2014 ("Ans."); and
the Final Office Action mailed on July 23, 2013, from which this Appeal is
taken ("Final Act.").
3
Appeal2014-005823
Application 11/571,457
physically touching the keypads on the thermostat panel (appliance)." Final
Act. 6 (citing Wacker, col. 7, 11. 25---65, col. 34, 11. 16-17) (emphasis
omitted).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not identified, within
the cited sections of Wacker, function calls that can be accessed only via the
virtual user interface and not via the physical user interface. In these
sections of Wacker, Wacker discloses the use of PDA application code to
configure a thermostat. See Wacker, col. 7, 11. 25---65. Wacker discloses a
number of benefits such a configuration tool provides, but does not, in our
review of the cited sections, disclose thermostat functions that may be
accessed via the PDA application code (i.e., the virtual user interface) but
not via the physical interface of the thermostat.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F .2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 2 or independent claim 20, which recites a similar limitation.
Additionally, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-19 and 21-37,
which depend from claims 2 and 20, respectively.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-37.
REVERSED
4