Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

2020000511 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
14/046,127 10/04/2013 Takashi MATSUMOTO 129E_027 3450
23400 7590 09/29/2020
POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC
12040 SOUTH LAKES DRIVE
SUITE 101
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
SHAIKH, MERAJ A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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):
dposz@poszlaw.com
mailbox@poszlaw.com
tvarndell@poszlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKASHI MATSUMOTO, HIROTOSHI YANO,
TOSHIAKI YOSHIKAWA, KOMI MATSUBARA, and
MASAMI HAGIWARA

Appeal 2020-000511
Application 14/046,127
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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 and 4–13. See Appeal Br. 4; Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MITSUBISHI
ELECTRIC CORPORATION, the assignee of record. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-000511
Application 14/046,127
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to a technique of adjusting the air
temperature in a house.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A temperature adjustment system, comprising:
a plurality of first temperature measurers;
a second temperature measurer;
a plurality of suckers;
a discharger;
and a system controller;
wherein the first temperature measurers each measure a
first air temperature in a corresponding first room of a plurality
of first rooms within a building and transmit a measurement
result to the system controller;
the second temperature measurer measures a second air
temperature in a second room within the building and transmits
a measurement result to the system controller;
the suckers each suck air from a corresponding first room
of the first rooms into a duct installed in the building; and
the discharger discharges the air taken from one of the first
rooms via the duct into the second room,
wherein the system controller comprises:
a suction controller controlling the operation of the
suckers;
a discharge controller controlling the operation of
the discharger;
and an adjustment necessity determiner:
selecting, from among the first rooms, a first
room as a supply source of air based on a time
window,
calculating an air temperature difference
between a first air temperature in the selected first
room and the second air temperature in the second
room, and
determining that adjustment of the air
temperature difference between the first air
temperature in the selected first room and the
Appeal 2020-000511
Application 14/046,127
3
second air temperature in the second room is
necessary when the calculated air temperature
difference exceeds a given threshold,
wherein if the adjustment necessity determiner determines
that the adjustment is necessary, the suction controller orders the
sucker corresponding to the selected first room to start operation
and the discharge controller orders the discharger to start
operation, and
wherein the time window is a specific time period with a
set start time and a set end time.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lim JP 2010-091237 April 22, 2010
Nochida JP 2011-069539 April 7, 2011

REJECTION
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 4–13 103 Lim, Nochida

OPINION
Obviousness
We first note that Appellant directs all of its arguments to the
language of claim 1. Appellant asserts that additional “[i]ndependent claims
6, 7, and 8 include analogous language to those argued above and thus also
are not disclosed by a combination of Lim and Nochida.” Appeal Br. 23.
We note that claims 6, 7, and 8 do not contain the same or analogous claim
language; in particular, they do not detail the argued “time window” in the
same way as found in claim 1. Although we agree with Appellant regarding
claim 1, because the language of claims 6, 7, and 8, and therefore also the
Appeal 2020-000511
Application 14/046,127
4
claims depending therefrom, do not contain the same detailed language, we
do not agree that Appellant’s arguments apply equally to the other
independent claims.
As to claim 1, Appellant points out that the Examiner erred in the
assertion “that because Appellant’s claims do not specifically include a
recitation of ‘a particular time of day’ that Appellant’s interpretation of the
terms ‘a set start time’ and ‘a set end time’ cannot be found persuasive.”
Reply Br. 2; see Ans. 3–4. As Appellant correctly notes, the time window
relied upon by the Examiner in Lim “is a random time, the exact opposite of
a set time.” Reply Br. 3.
Lim teaches a similar overall system that uses suckers to augment the
temperature regulation in a particular room by transferring air from a source
room to a target room. Lim, however, does this based upon a triggering
event, such as a resident walking into the target room. In this manner, Lim
does not teach a “set time” for the time window, but rather teaches that the
time window starts at a time that is unknown, and unknowable in advance,
and is triggered by the resident entering the room. Also, Lim teaches that air
will be pumped from a source room to a target room until the temperature in
the target room reaches the desired temperature. As with the start time, the
time it takes to reach the target temperature is both unknown and
unknowable at the inception of the start time. Even if we were to agree that
Lim teaches a set start time via the triggering event, we do not agree that
Lim teaches the claimed set end time.
As we understand the time window recited in claim 1, it should be
interpreted such that at least at the time when the start time is known, the
end time is also known. Lim, however, teaches a system that has an open-
ended time window that is only known after the time window has elapsed.
Appeal 2020-000511
Application 14/046,127
5
We do not agree that a system that operates based on a specified time
window can be one where the time window is not actually known until the
time window ends.
As Appellant correctly points out, the Specification describes the
selection of the living room “as the supply source from 6:00 to 10:00PM and
the bedroom is selected as the supply source form 10:00PM to 6:00AM the
following morning.” Spec. ¶ 56. The selection of the source is consistently
described throughout the Specification as being a window with set start and
end times that are known in advance of the operation of the system. In other
words, the disclosed system relies on knowing the window in advance in
order to know from which room to suck air given a particular time of day.
Given that there is no other disclosed time window, we agree that the recited
time window having set start and end times must be known in advance in
order for the claimed system to operate. Because Lim reacts to a triggering
event to start and then ends essentially based on another triggering event,
reaching a desired temperature, neither of these times can be considered a set
start or end time.
As to claims 6, 7, and 8, as noted above and contrary to Appellant’s
assertion, these claims recite only a generic “time window” without any of
the detail contained in claim 1 regarding specific start and end times.
Accordingly, we do not agree that Appellant’s arguments apply equally to
these claims. Although we disagree with the Examiner regarding the
specific start and end times of claim 1, we do agree with the Examiner that
Lim teaches at least the generically claimed “time window” found in claims
6, 7, and 8. Accordingly, because Appellant essentially makes no argument
that applies to the language of these claims, we are not apprised of error and
Appeal 2020-000511
Application 14/046,127
6
thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–8 and their respective
dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED IN PART.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–13 103 Lim, Nochida 6–8, 11–13 1, 4, 5, 9, 10

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED IN PART