2020004659 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2021)

Otis Elevator Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 18, 2021

2020004659 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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. 15/287,807 10/07/2016 Fred G. Williams 81274US01 (U320718US) 8262 87423 7590 10/18/2021 Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2021 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): frederic.tenney@otis.com frederic.tenney@otis.com usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRED G. WILLIAMS and PAUL A. SIMCIK Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Otis Elevator Company. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “an elevator call system utilizing a mobile device” that can be “applied to multiple buildings with multiple floors.” Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2. Claims 1 and 3–13 are pending and rejected; claims 14–20 are withdrawn; claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent. Appeal Br. 10– 12; Final Act. 2. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases added): 1. A method of operating an elevator call system comprising: prioritizing a first plurality of elevator destination selections associated with a first building; and displaying the prioritized first plurality of elevator destination selections on a display screen of a mobile device in a prioritized order, wherein the first plurality of elevator destination selections are a plurality of elevator destination combination selections. References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Hudson US 2007/0186183 A1 Aug. 9, 2007 Bloebaum US 2010/0093365 A1 Apr. 15, 2010 Gerstenkorn US 2012/0031711 A1 Feb. 9, 2012 Albright US 2013/0205257 A1 Aug. 8, 2013 Parkkinen US 2014/0131142 A1 May 15, 2014 Long US 2017/0122744 A1 May 4, 2017 Claims 1, 3–7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parkkinen in view of Gerstenkorn. Final Act. 3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parkkinen and Gerstenkorn, in further view of Long. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 3 Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parkkinen and Gerstenkorn, in further view of Albright and Hudson. Final Act. 6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parkkinen, Gerstenkorn, Albright, and Hudson, in further view of Bloebaum. Final Act. 9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Independent Claim 1 Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error, because the references fail to teach or suggest “a prioritized plurality of elevator destination combination selections.” Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner’s rejection includes two alternative bases for finding the disputed limitation is obvious: “Parkkinen clearly discloses displaying a prioritized plurality of elevator destination combination selections,” and the rejection “also relied on Gerstenkorn for alternatively teaching” the disputed limitation. Ans. 5. We do not find the Examiner errs under either basis. With respect to the first rejection basis, Appellant argues Parkkinen’s “list can be updated, but nothing explicitly teaches it is prioritized.” Appeal Br. 5. Instead, Appellant contends Parkkinen’s list merely includes “eight Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 4 combination selections [which] are listed as ‘favorites’” and “a most recent grouping of past choices.” Id. Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, and, therefore, does not persuade us of error in the rejection. That is, the recited “prioritizing a first plurality of elevator destination selections” does not require that every displayed selection be prioritized; rather, the displayed listing of selections can include both prioritized and additional non- prioritized selections. Further, the recited step of displaying the “prioritized order” does not require that each individual selection is prioritized with respect to each other selection in the first plurality; rather, the “prioritized order” may merely order some (but not all) selections before other selections. See Ans. 6 (“Nowhere does claim 1 require that all components of the elevator destination selections must be prioritized.”). Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that the disputed limitations are taught or suggested by Parkkinen’s display of “recent” elevator destination selections above “favorite” destination selections. Final Act. 3, 11; Ans. 4, 5; Parkkinen Fig. 2. With respect to the second rejection basis, Appellant argues “Gerstenkorn disclose prioritizing elevator destinations, but not elevator destination combinations.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends “[i]t should be appreciated that there is a considerable difference between elevator destinations and elevator combination destinations,” such that “[t]here is another level, or dimension, of complexity to claim 1 not considered in Gerstenkorn.” Id. at 5, 6. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of error because they attack the references individually, and thus fail to address the Examiner’s findings. Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 5 Specifically, the Examiner correctly finds Parkkinen teaches “elevator destination combination selections” and Gerstenkorn teaches prioritizing “travel destination most frequently selected.” Final Act. 3, 4; Parkkinen ¶ 41 (“present one or more predetermined departure floor-destination floor pairs on the touch-sensitive display”); Gerstenkorn ¶ 28 (“the ascertained destination calls are automatically marked in succession in a predetermined sequence”). The Examiner finds the combination of these teachings renders the disputed “prioritizing” recitations obvious: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the user interface disclosed in Parkkinen to include the elevator destination selection user interface that is displayed in a prioritized manner disclosed in Gerstenkorn in order to simplify the destination selection for the user. Final Act. 4. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s combination findings; thus, Appellant does not show that combining the prior art was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19). We agree with the Examiner’s alternative obviousness basis, that the combination of Parkkinen and Gerstenkorn’s teachings renders the disputed limitations obvious. See Ans. 5. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Dependent Claim 8 Claim 8 depends ultimately from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the boarding description is automatically known via positioning circuitry of Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 6 the mobile device.” Appellant argues the Examiner errs in citing to Long for this limitation, because Long “merely discloses guiding a user to ride an elevator, and does not disclose automatically determining a boarding description. In fact, FIG. 4c clearly shows the user most enter the starting floor.” Appeal Br. 6. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding: Long is relied on for teaching the limitations “boarding description is automatically known via position circuitry of the mobile device.” Long discloses a method for intelligently guiding a user to ride an elevator/escalator (see Fig. 1 B and ¶ 0033) including displaying a user interfacing including elevator calls (i.e., see Figs. 4A-4C and ¶ 0036) and determining current location of the user through a GPS system (¶ 0033); the starting floor of the user are acquired based on the acquired current location of the user (see Fig. 1B and ¶ 0034). Ans. 7. As cited by the Examiner, Long discloses “the terminal may determine the current location of the user through a mobile positioning technology,” and “the starting floor of the user may be acquired based on the current location of the user.” Long ¶¶ 33, 34. Appellant fails to show such teachings are patentably distinguishable from the disputed limitations of claim 8, as understood by one of ordinary skill and consistent with the Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 39 (“an elevator destination combination selection that includes a boarding description . . . representative of where the user may enter the elevator car.”). We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 8. Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 7 Independent Claim 9 Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is in error: Claim 9 recites . . . : displaying a first plurality of elevator destination selections associated with a first building on a display screen of a mobile device, wherein the first plurality of elevator destination selections is prioritized; and displaying a second plurality of elevator destination selections associated with a second building on the display screen of the mobile device simultaneous to the displaying of the first plurality of elevator destination selections[.] The Office attempts to combine four references stating there is a motivation to combine each and every reference. Applicant contends the Office is simply picking and choosing between references in an attempt to design a system that reads on claim 9 via the improper use of hindsight. Alternatively, or in addition thereto, in FIG. 1 of Hudson, a list of floors is displayed only after a building is selected. Hudson therefore does not teach the limitation claimed by the Office that Hudson teaches the simultaneous display of floors for each building. Appeal Br. 7. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Appellant has not identified any specific failings in the Examiner’s combination rationale, beyond the bare assertion that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s combination is in error. Further, the Examiner relies on said combination for teaching the disputed limitation: “Pakkinen, Gerstenkorn, and Albright disclose a method for displaying . . . [a] first building and . . . the second building,” and “Hudson discloses simultaneously displaying . . . item selections.” Ans. 9; Hudson Fig. 1, ¶ 18 (“Multiple groups . . . can be expanded at the same time.”). Because we are not persuaded the Examiner’s Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 8 combination is in error, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the references teach or suggest the simultaneous display of floors for each building. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 9. Dependent Claim 12 Claim 12 depends ultimately from independent claim 9. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 is in error: Claim 12 recites: prioritization of the first and second building selections is based on geographic proximity enabled by positioning circuitry of the mobile device. The Office attempts to combine five references suggesting there is a motivation to combine each and every reference. Applicant contends the Office is simply picking and choosing between references in an attempt to design a system that reads on claim 12 via the improper use of hindsight. Alternatively, or in addition thereto, the Office states Bloebaum discloses a controller that uses a location module to determine the current location of a mobile device (100), and then sort the content based on the distance between the location at which it was created and the current location. Applicant agrees, but the location of the first and second building selections is not created at the site of the first and second buildings. Bloebaum, for example, discloses the taking of photographs and the geographic location of which the photograph was taken. This is different. In addition, Bloebaum does not disclose displaying the first and second buildings (or anything else) simultaneously. Appeal Br. 8. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 is in error. We agree with the Examiner that Bloebaum teaches a “method for sorting Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 9 information on a mobile device . . . . wherein a list of selectable data/content is sorted based on geographic proximity enabled by positioning circuitry of the mobile device.” Ans. 11. The Examiner’s findings are reasonable, because Bloebaum discloses a “controller . . . may create a list of the content that begins with content created at a location nearest to the current location and ends with content created at a location farthest from the current location.” Bloebaum ¶ 22. Moreover, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9, Appellant fails to show the Examiner’s combination analysis is faulty. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 12. CONCLUSION We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding claims 1, 8, 9, and 12 to be obvious in view of the cited references. Appellant does not present separate substantive arguments for the remaining claims. See Appeal Br. 5– 8. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 3– 13. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 13 103 Parkkinen, Gerstenkorn 1, 3–7, 13 8 103 Parkkinen, Gerstenkorn, Long 8 9–11 103 Parkkinen, Gerstenkorn, Albright, Hudson 9–11 Appeal 2020-004659 Application 15/287,807 10 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 12 103 Parkkinen, Gerstenkorn, Albright, Hudson, Bloebaum 12 Overall Outcome 1, 3–13 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