Ex Parte Othman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2017

13802285 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/802,285 03/13/2013 Abraham Othman BRI001 9607
78077 7590 07/18/2017
Law Office of Kenneth C. Brooks
P.O. Box 321120
Los Gatos, CA 95032
EXAMINER
AZAD, MD ABUL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2017 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):
kcb @ brookspatents .com
ericarus @ earthlink.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABRAHAM OTHMAN
Appeal 2017-004815
Application 13/802,2851
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—8 and 14—25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Building Robotics,
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-004815
Application 13/802,285
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application related to providing user feedback in
heating ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Spec. 11.
Claims 1,14, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
with bracketed material added and disputed limitations emphasized.
1. A method of operating an HVAC system having a
pump in fluid communication with both a supply of gas and a
duct system, having an input and an output and defining a flow
path therebetween, a temperature regulation system in thermal
communication with said flow path and a controller in electrical
communication with said temperature regulation system and said
pump, said method comprising:
receiving a request from said control system to varying
[sic] a temperature of said gas exiting said output;
establishing, with said controller, operation of said pump
to maximize a flow rate of said gas propagating through said
output into a volume for a first duration of time;
upon expiration of said first duration of time[,]
establishing operation of said pump, with said controller, to
reduce the flow rate of said gas exiting through said output into
said volume to a desired flow rate that is less than said maximum
flow rate, with said first duration of time being independent of a
temperature of said gas in said volume;
sensing a temperature of said gas in said volume using said
controller; and
terminating gas flow through said output in response to
said controller sensing said gas in said volume has reached a
desired temperature.
2
Appeal 2017-004815
Application 13/802,285
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1—8 and 14—25, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as obvious over Ameson (US 2008/0251590 Al; published
Oct. 16, 2008) and Gauthier (US 5,911,747; issued June 15, 1999). Final
Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Gauthier teaches the
claimed maximizing of an HVAC flow rate for a time duration independent
of temperature. App. Br. 10-13. According to Appellant, Gauthier ceases a
max flow rate if and when a lesser flow rate can satisfactorily provide a
desired temperature for the recipient volume. Id. at 11. Appellant explains:
“What is important to note is that Gauthier seeks to determine whether heat
energy may be minimized so as to reduce the operation costs of the
operation of the system.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it is not
commensurate with the claim language and not responsive to the Examiner’s
findings. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Gauthier teaches claim 1 ’s
independent first duration because the embodiment of Gauthier’s Figures 5A
through 5D responds to thermostat calls by initially heating at a max flow
rate for at least four minutes. Ans. 5 (citing Gauthier Fig. 5 A, step 156), 26
(same citation); Final Act. 7 (same citation); accord Gauthier Figs. 5A—D,
steps 156—170 (setting and completing minimum run time of four minutes,
respectively at steps 156 and 170, regardless of recipient volume
temperature, which is considered at step 174). Gauthier summarizes the
initial heating as follows:
3
Appeal 2017-004815
Application 13/802,285
Thus, after initiating heating, the controller performs no action
until the minimum run timer has timed out, and either Ts is above
its setpoint, or the rate of change of Ts is below its setpoint. The
minimum run timer thus ensures that the heating continues in an
on state for at least an amount of time which is consistent with
the manufacturers’ specifications.
Gauthier col. 10,11. 51—57; see also Ans. 27 (citing Gauthier col. 10,11. 28—
57). Appellant does not distinguish the claimed first duration of time from
the cited teaching of a minimum run time that is set in response to a request
for heating from a thermostat. See generally App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 3.
Further, Appellant makes several cursory statements, including:
“Gauthier . . . does not recognize the problem that Applicant seeks to solve
. . .” (App. Br. at 12); “Gauthier teaches away from the claim invention
. . . [by] use of either a minimum ... or a maximized heat transfer . . .” (id.);
“Examiner’s logic is . . . using the claims as a road map . . .” (id. at 11—12).
These arguments lack the analysis and evidence needed to establish that
Gauthier is non-analogous art or that the Examiner’s analysis is otherwise
deficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015); see also In reLovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Finally, in the Reply Brief, Appellant contends the Examiner’s
citation in the Answer of additional support from Gauthier amounts to a new
ground of rejection. Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s argument is directed to an
issue that must be raised via petition to the Director, not via appeal to this
Board. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a) (“Any request to seek review of the primary
examiner’s failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection in an
examiner’s answer must be by way of a petition to the Director.”).
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Appellant presents no further arguments on claims 2—8 and 14—25.
4
Appeal 2017-004815
Application 13/802,285
App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—8 and 14—25.
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
5