K4CONNECT INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

2019006331 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2020)

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.
15/196,990 06/29/2016 Jonathan Andrew GOULD 61087 5680
27975 7590 09/21/2020
ADD+G - 27975
1135 East State Road 434, Suite 3001
Winter Springs, FL 32708
EXAMINER
FURDGE, LARRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
creganoa@allendyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN ANDREW GOULD
____________

Appeal 2019-006331
Application 15/196,990
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Oct. 26, 2018, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. K4Connect Inc. is identified as the real party in interest in
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 8, 2019, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”).
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006331
Application 15/196,990

2

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to an automated climate control system
and its method of operation. Spec. paras. 7, 12.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A climate control system comprising:
a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
system for an indoor building area being switchable between
operating modes for heating and cooling;
a home automation (HA) thermostat device in the indoor
building area and comprising
a housing,
an indoor temperature sensor carried by said
housing and configured to sense an indoor temperature
of the indoor building area, and
a temperature controller carried by said housing
and configured to
obtain a setpoint temperature for the indoor
building area,
obtain an external temperature from external
to the indoor building area,
determine a crossing of the external
temperature of the setpoint temperature, and
switch said HVAC system between
operating modes based upon the crossing of the
external temperature of the setpoint temperature
and the indoor temperature moving beyond the
setpoint temperature by a threshold temperature
difference.

Appeal 2019-006331
Application 15/196,990

3

REJECTIONS

I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Altonen,2 Ehlers,3 Kim,4 and Samuel.5
II. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim,
Samuel, and Drennan.6
III. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim,
Samuel, and Lafleur.7
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim, Samuel, and Simon.8
V. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim, Samuel, and Larson.9

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 requires, inter alia, a
temperature controller configured to switch a heating, ventilation, and air

2 Altonen et al., US 2012/0091804 A1, published Apr. 19, 2012.
3 Ehlers, US 2007/0013532 A1, published Jan. 18, 2007.
4 Kim et al., US 2012/0048951 A1, published Mar. 1, 2012.
5 Samuel, US 4,711,394, issued Dec. 8, 1987.
6 Drennan, US 2003/0177012 A1, published Sept. 18, 2003.
7 Lafleur et al., US 2012/0029725 A1, published Feb. 2, 2012.
8 Simon et al., US 2006/0196953 A1, published Sept. 7, 2006.
9 Larson, US 3,952,796, issued Apr. 27, 1976.
Appeal 2019-006331
Application 15/196,990

4

conditioning system (“HVAC”) between heating and cooling operating
modes based upon an indoor temperature moving beyond a setpoint
temperature by a “threshold temperature difference.” See Appeal Br. 16,
18–20 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Altonen and
Ehlers disclose many of the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 16,
but do not disclose a temperature controller having the above noted feature.
See Final Act. 3–4. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Kim discloses an
air conditioning system having a temperature controller configured to switch
between heating and cooling operating modes based upon an indoor
temperature moving beyond a setpoint temperature by a “threshold
temperature difference.” Id. at 4 (citing Kim, paras. 59–62, Fig. 6). Thus,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan
to control the HVAC system of Altonen, as modified by Ehlers, to switch
between heating and cooling operating modes based upon an indoor
temperature moving beyond a setpoint temperature by a “threshold
temperature difference,” as taught by Kim. Id. According to the Examiner,
a person of ordinary skill would have made such a modification “in order to
provide a system where the air conditioner precisely controls the
temperature of the hot air or the cold air blown into the interior.” Id.
Appellant argues that Kim’s temperature controller switches between
heating and cooling modes based upon an internal (indoor) temperature
exceeding a setpoint temperature, not a “threshold temperature difference,”
as called for by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16. Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner responds that Kim’s temperature controller has a target
temperature 23o C and switches to a cooling mode when the interior
Appeal 2019-006331
Application 15/196,990

5

temperature is 28o C and to a heating mode when the interior temperature is
13o C. See Examiner Answer (dated May 21, 2019, hereinafter “Ans.”) 11;
see also Kim, paras. 60, 61. Thus, according to the Examiner, Kim’s
temperature controller “switches to a cooling mode when the interior
temperature . . . crosses a threshold of . . . 5o C” and “to a heating mode
when the interior temperature . . . crosses a threshold of . . . [1]0o C.” Ans.
11. In other words, according to the Examiner, Kim’s controller switches to
a cooling mode when there is a temperature difference of 5o C between the
target temperature of 23o C and the interior temperature of 28o C and to a
heating mode when there is a temperature difference of 10o C between the
target temperature of 23o C and the interior temperature of 13o C.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings because Kim does not
disclose switching to a cooling or a heating mode based on a “threshold
temperature difference,” but rather based on “a difference between an
internal temperature . . . and a target temperature.” Kim, Abstract. In
particular, Kim’s controller switches to a cooling mode when it determines
that the interior temperature of 28o C is higher than the target temperature of
23o C. Id., para. 60. Hence, Kim’s controller compares the interior
temperature to the target temperature, and if the interior temperature is
determined to be higher, switches to a cooling mode. In a similar manner,
Kim’s controller switches to a heating mode after comparing the interior
temperature to the target temperature and determining that the interior
temperature of 13o C is lower than the target temperature of 23o C. Id., para.
61. As such, Kim’s controller switches between cooling and heating modes
by comparing the interior temperature to the target temperature and
Appeal 2019-006331
Application 15/196,990

6

determining whether the interior temperature is higher or lower,
respectively, than the target temperature.
Although we appreciate that Kim’s paragraphs 60 and 61 describe a
temperature difference of 5o C and 10o C, respectively, the Examiner fails to
adequately explain why such temperature differences constitute a “threshold
temperature difference,” i.e., a specific temperature difference, as called for
by each of claims 1, 10, and 16. The Examiner’s interpretation of Kim’s
temperature differences of 5o C and 10o C as the claimed “threshold
temperature difference” renders the term “threshold” superfluous. See Bicon
Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Claims are
construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.).
Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kim’s
controller switches between cooling and heating modes based on whether
the interior temperature exceeds the target temperature by a “threshold
temperature difference” of specifically 5o C and 10o C, respectively. Ans.
11. Stated differently, Kim’s controller does not switch between cooling and
heating modes based upon a specific temperature difference, i.e., a
“threshold temperature difference,” but rather upon determining whether the
interior temperature is merely different from the target temperature, that is,
upon determining whether the interior temperature is higher or lower than
the target temperature. Therefore, Kim fails to disclose switching between
cooling and heating operation modes based upon a “threshold temperature
difference,” as called for by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16.
The Examiner’s use of the disclosure of Samuel does not remedy the
deficiency of the Altonen, Ehlers, and Kim combination discussed above.
See Final Act. 4–5. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not
Appeal 2019-006331
Application 15/196,990

7

sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 1, 10, 16,
and their respective dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20, as
unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim, and Samuel.

Rejections II–V
The Examiner’s use of the disclosures of Drennan, Lafleur, Simon,
and Larson does not remedy the deficiency of the Altonen, Ehlers, Kim, and
Samuel combination discussed supra. See Final Act. 6–9. Therefore, for the
same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of:
(1) claims 3, 12, and 17 as unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim,
Samuel, and Drennan;
(2) claims 5, 14, and 19 as unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim,
Samuel, and Lafleur;
(3) claim 7 as unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim, Samuel, and
Simon; and
(4) claim 9 as unpatentable over Altonen, Ehlers, Kim, Samuel, and
Larson.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6,
8, 10, 11,
13, 15, 16,
18, 20
103 Altonen, Ehlers,
Kim, Samuel
1, 2, 4, 6,
8, 10, 11,
13, 15,
16, 18, 20
Appeal 2019-006331
Application 15/196,990

8

3, 12, 17 103 Altonen, Ehlers,
Kim, Samuel,
Drennan
3, 12, 17
5, 14, 19 103 Altonen, Ehlers,
Kim, Samuel,
Lafleur
5, 14, 19
7 103 Altonen, Ehlers,
Kim, Samuel,
Simon
7
9 103 Altonen, Ehlers,
Kim, Samuel,
Larson
9
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED