Honeywell International Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2021

2020005657 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2021)

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.
15/368,472 12/02/2016 Levi H. Geadelmann H0014761C1-1161.1321102 7282
90545 7590 09/21/2021
HONEYWELL/STW
Intellectual Property Services Group
855 S. Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
RUBY, TRAVIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2021 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):
Honeywell.USPTO@STWiplaw.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LEVI H. GEADELMANN, DANIEL J. SULLIVAN,
CAMEL ZHANG, GARY YANG, and ANGELA ZHAO
____________

Appeal 2020-005657
Application 15/368,472
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19, which are all the pending claims.
See Appeal Br. 5–13; Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005657
Application 15/368,472

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates “generally to thermostats and
more particularly to thermostats adapted for use with fan coils.” Spec., p. 1,
ll. 8–9. Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A fan coil thermostat for use with a fan coil system that
has a fan, the fan coil thermostat comprising:
a controller implementing a control algorithm that is
configured to at least partially control one or more components
of the fan coil system including the fan, the control algorithm
including an Auto fan speed mode for automatically selecting a
fan speed for the fan from three or more different fan speeds
based at least in part upon a temperature differential between a
current sensed temperature and a current temperature set point,
and/or a humidity differential between a current sensed
humidity and a current humidity set point, wherein the three or
more different fan speeds include a zero fan speed and two or
more non-zero fan speeds;
a user interface;
a timer controlled by the controller; and
wherein, while in the Auto fan speed mode, the controller
permits a user to manually select a fan speed that is one of the
three or more different fan speeds using the user interface, the
controller initiating the timer in response to the user manually
selecting the fan speed, and once the timer expires, the
controller always returning back to the fan speed dictated by
the Auto fan speed mode in which the fan speed is based upon
the temperature differential and/or the humidity differential.

Appeal 2020-005657
Application 15/368,472

3
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Toth US 6,318,639 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
Violand US 2005/0115258 A1 June 2, 2005

REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1–19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Violand and
Toth. Final Act. 3–11.

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 (and Dependent Claims 2–12)
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from
Violand and Toth renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1.
Final Act. 3–5. Appellant argues against the rejection of claims 1–12
together, contending that Toth does not teach or suggest the claimed feature
of the controller always returning to an Auto fan speed mode (where a fan
speed is selected from three or more different fan speeds based upon a
temperature differential and/or a humidity differential), following expiration
of a timer triggered by a manual override, as claimed. See Appeal Br. 5–7;
Reply Br. 2–5. After careful consideration of the record before us,
Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual
findings relied on from Toth, which are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, or the Examiner’s reasonable determination of obviousness, which
is rationally articulated based on the prior art.
Appeal 2020-005657
Application 15/368,472

4
In particular, Appellant acknowledges that it is conceivable that
Toth’s controller could return to an Auto fan speed mode, following
expiration of a timer triggered by a manual override, under some
circumstances, but asserts that it is also possible for Toth’s controller to
return to another mode, as dictated by a programmable schedule of the
controller. Appeal Br. 7. This argument is unpersuasive of error. In
combination with Violand, the teaching of Toth’s controller returning to an
Auto fan speed mode, when dictated by the programmable schedule, is
sufficient to support the Examiner’s determination that the claimed feature
of the controller always returning to an Auto fan speed mode would have
been obvious. See Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 13–15. Appellant does not explain
how constraining Toth’s controller to always return to a particular mode
(especially where the programmable schedule only includes three modes to
which it could possibly return) would be unpredictable or somehow beyond
the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Although we appreciate Appellant’s observation that Toth also
teaches additional modes of operation from which a manual override could
be initiated, such additional modes do not disturb the Examiner’s reasoned
position that—in a situation where Toth’s controller is simply programmed
to remain in the Auto fan speed mode—the system would then always return
back to this mode (Auto fan speed mode) upon expiration of the manual
override based on the programmed schedule. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 14–15.
Initiating the manual override from anything other than an Auto fan speed
mode is not relevant to the analysis of independent claim 1, which only
encompasses initiating the manual override “while in the Auto fan speed
Appeal 2020-005657
Application 15/368,472

5
mode,” so Toth’s other modes logically were not relied upon in the rejection
of record. See id.; Appeal Br., Claims App.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner’s findings
of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the
Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is well-founded. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Violand and Toth.

Independent Claim 13 (and Dependent Claims 14–17)
Independent claim 13 includes many of the same features relevant to
the discussion of claim 1, and also includes “wherein, while in the Auto fan
speed mode, the controller is programmed to permit a user to manually
select a fan speed that is one of the three or more different fan speeds using
only the fan speed up button and/or the fan speed down button.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings
from Violand and Toth renders obvious the subject matter of independent
claim 13. Final Act. 5–7.
Appellant argues against the rejection of claims 13–17 together,
relying initially on the same argument made for claim 1 (see Appeal
Br. 8–9), discussed and determined to be unpersuasive above, and adding
further that Toth requires a plurality of button pushes and thus does not teach
the claimed feature of the manual override being initiated using only the fan
speed up or down button (see id. at 9–10). This further argument is
unpersuasive of error, as it is not responsive to the rejection presented. See
Ans. 16. The rejection relies on Violand, not Toth, for teaching the feature
of the manual override being initiated using only the fan speed up or down
Appeal 2020-005657
Application 15/368,472

6
button, and this uncontested finding is sufficiently supported by the
evidence. See Final Act. 6 (citing Violand ¶¶ 60–65); see also Violand ¶ 65
(discussing actuation of either of the fan speed adjustment keys while in the
auto fan mode to enter manual adjustment of the fan speed).
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner’s findings
of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the
Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is well-founded. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 13–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Violand and Toth.

Independent Claim 18 (and Dependent Claim 19)
Independent claim 18 includes many of the same features relevant to
the discussion of claims 1 and 13, and also includes “wherein[,] while
waiting for the timer to expire, the controller restarts the timer if the user
manually selects the fan speed up button, the fan speed down button, the
temperature up button or the temperature down button.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from
Violand and Toth renders obvious the subject matter of independent
claim 18. Final Act. 7–9.
Appellant argues against the rejection of claims 18 and 19 together,
relying initially on the same arguments made for claims 1 and 13 (see
Appeal Br. 11), discussed and determined to be unpersuasive above, and
adding further that Toth is deficient in teaching that the controller would
restart the timer if the user manually selects the fan speed up or down button
or the temperature up or down button (see id. at 11–12). In considering this
further argument, we note that the Examiner relied on Toth (citing col. 1,
Appeal 2020-005657
Application 15/368,472

7
ll. 40–45 and col. 8, ll. 10–16) for teaching the claimed feature of the
controller restarting the manual override timer if the user manually selects
one of the recited buttons. Final Act. 9. Reviewing the cited disclosures of
Toth relied on in the rejection, which discuss a timed manual override, it
seems plausible that a user selecting one of the recited buttons could restart
the timer (essentially just resetting the timed manual override to start again),
but it seems equally plausible that a user selecting one of the recited buttons
would simply change the fan speed or temperature, depending on the button
selected, without changing the timer at all (essentially just letting the timed
manual override to continue until the timer expires).
Because we do not see a sufficient teaching in Toth as to how the
manual override timer might operate given a selection of one of the recited
buttons by the user, and the Examiner does not explain why one plausible
option would be any more likely than another (see Ans. 17), we cannot say
that the Examiner’s finding for this feature is supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 18 is premised on a finding that is not sufficiently supported by the
record. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Violand and Toth.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17, as
discussed above.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18 and 19, as
discussed above.
Appeal 2020-005657
Application 15/368,472

8
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)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19 103(a) Violand, Toth 1–17 18, 19

AFFIRMED IN PART