Redwood Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 5, 2020

14521498 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 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.
14/521,498 10/23/2014 Luc W. Adriaenssens 1243-433 4742
79207 7590 08/05/2020
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
DIVELBISS, MATTHEW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2020 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):
uspto@myersbigel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parteLUC W. ADRIAENSSENS, STEWART FINDLATER, and
ROBERT B. HENIG
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
Technology Center 3600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON J. CHUNG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME,Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–10, 12–17, 19–22, and 26, which are
all claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claims 11, 18,
and 23–25. See Appeal Br. 21–25 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Redwood Systems,
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to overhead-mounted infrared sensor array
based hoteling systems and related methods. See Spec. (Title). In particular,
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention are “directed to
hoteling systems and, more particularly, to sensor based hoteling systems.”
Spec. ¶ 2.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 15, and 26, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on Appeal (formatting added, and emphases added to
contested prior-art limitations):
1. A hoteling system for an open work area that
includes a plurality of work spaces, each work space of the
plurality of work spaces bounded on at least one side by a wall
extending only part of the way from a floor of the open work
area toward a ceiling of the open work area, the hoteling system
comprising:
a plurality of infrared sensor arrays mounted from the
ceiling of the open work area in a[n] M-by-N grid pattern,
where M and N are each integers greater than or equal to two,
wherein each infrared sensor array includes a two-dimensional
array of infrared emission sensors, wherein each infrared
emission sensor is associated with a field of view pattern,
and wherein the field of view patterns of the infrared
emission sensors of a first infrared sensor array project into the
open work area in a first P-by-Q grid pattern, where P and Q are

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Aug. 27, 2019); Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 10, 2020);
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 10, 2019); Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 1, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,”
filed Oct. 23, 2014) (claiming benefit of US 61/895,036, filed
Oct. 24, 2013).
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
3
each integers greater than or equal to two, wherein the field of
view patterns of the infrared emission sensors of a second
infrared sensor array project into the open work area in a
second P-by-Q grid pattern, and
wherein the first P-by-Q grid pattern and the
second P-by-Q grid pattern overlap; and
a controller that is remote from at least some of the
infrared sensor arrays and that is in communications with the
infrared sensor arrays, the controller configured to determine an
occupancy state of each work space of the plurality of work
spaces based at least in part on information received from the
infrared sensor arrays.
15. A method of assigning work spaces in a hoteling
system, the method comprising:
detecting infrared emissions within individual work
spaces in an open work area using a plurality of infrared
sensor arrays mounted to a ceiling over the open work area in
a[n] M-by-N grid pattern, where M and N are each integers
greater than or equal to two,
wherein each individual work space is defined by at least
one wall extending partway between a floor of the open work
area and the ceiling of the open work area,
wherein the infrared sensor arrays each include a
plurality of sensors, and wherein each infrared sensor array is
arranged so that field of view patterns of the sensors therein
extend into the open work area in a P-by-Q grid pattern, where
P and Q are each integers greater than or equal to two;
transmitting data from the infrared sensor arrays to a
controller;
using the controller to determine an occupancy state of
each of the individual work spaces based at least in part on the
data received from the infrared sensor arrays; and
assigning a work space in the open work area that has
been determined to be currently unoccupied to an individual.

Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
4
26. A hoteling system for an open work area that
includes a plurality of modular work spaces, each modular
work space of the plurality of modular work spaces bounded on
at least three sides by modular furniture extending partway
from a floor of the open work area toward a ceiling above the
open work area, each modular work space comprising at most
one chair and at most one modular desk, the hoteling system
comprising:
a plurality of infrared sensor arrays mounted from the
ceiling above the open work area in a[n] M-by-N grid pattern,
where M and N are each integers greater than or equal to two,
wherein each infrared sensor array includes a two-dimensional
array of infrared emission sensors, wherein each infrared
emission sensor of each infrared sensor array is associated with
a field of view pattern, wherein the field of view patterns of a
first infrared sensor array of the plurality of infrared emission
sensors project into the open work area in a P-by-Q grid
pattern, where P and Q are each integers greater than or equal to
two, and
wherein the first infrared sensor array of the plurality of
infrared sensor arrays is powered via a cable that includes a
conductor that provides a power signal to a light fixture that is
separate from the plurality of infrared sensor arrays and that is
over at least one of the modular work spaces of the plurality of
modular work spaces; and
a controller that is remote from at least some of the
infrared sensor arrays and that is in communications with the
infrared sensor arrays, wherein the controller is configured to
determine an occupancy state of each modular work space of
the plurality of modular work spaces based at least in part on
information received from each of the infrared sensor arrays,
and
wherein the information received from the first infrared
sensor array is transmitted to the controller over the conductor.
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
5
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
MacGregor et al. (“MacGregor”) US 2003/0154673 A1 Aug. 21, 2003
Korecki et al. (“Korecki”) US 2009/0193217 A1 July 30, 2009
Spero US 2012/0206050 A1 Aug. 16, 2012
Kleihorst et al. (“Kleihorst”) US 2012/0314081 A1 Dec. 13, 2012
Berg-Sonne et al. (“Berg-Sonne”) US 2013/0226320 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–6, 10, and 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Berg–Sonne and
Kleihorst. Final Act. 2.
R2. Claims 7–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst, and Spero.
Final Act. 20.
R3. Claims 15–17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst, and
Korecki. Final Act. 23.
R4. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst, Korecki, and
Spero. Final Act. 36.
R5. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst, Spero, and
MacGregor. Final Act. 39.
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
6
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6–19) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of obviousness
Rejection R1 of claims 1–6, 10, and 12–14 on the basis of representative
claim 1; and we decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R3 of claims
15–17, 21, and 22 on the basis of representative claim 15. We decide the
appeal of separately argued obviousness Rejection R5 of claim 26, infra.
Remaining claims 7–9, 19, and 20 in Rejections R2 and R4, not
argued separately, stand or fall with the respective independent claim from
which they depend.3
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–10,
12–17, 19–22, and 26 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by
reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
7
Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claims 1, 15, and 26 for emphasis as follows.
1. § 103 Rejection R1 of Claims 1–6, 10, and 12–14
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 6–14; Reply Br. 1–4) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Berg–Sonne and Kleihorst is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issues:
(a) Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests “[a] hoteling system for an open work area that includes
a plurality of work spaces, each work space of the plurality of work spaces
bounded on at least one side by a wall extending only part of the way from a
floor of the open work area toward a ceiling of the open work area” that
includes, inter alia, the limitation of:
a plurality of infrared sensor arrays mounted from the
ceiling of the open work area in a M-by-N grid pattern, where
M and N are each integers greater than or equal to two, wherein
each infrared sensor array includes a two-dimensional array of
infrared emission sensors, wherein each infrared emission
sensor is associated with a field of view pattern,
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)?
(b) Did the Examiner err in combining Berg-Sonne with Kleihorst
because Kleihorst allegedly teaches away from the claimed invention?
Principles of Law
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
8
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.
In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
9
Id. at 417.
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Analysis
(a) All Limitations are Taught or Suggested
The Examiner relies upon the combination of Berg-Sonne and
Kleihorst as teaching or suggesting the contested limitation. Final Act. 4–9
(citations omitted).
Appellant contends:
Any finding in the Final Action that Berg-Sonne teaches “a
plurality of infrared sensor arrays” is irrelevant, as there is no
required accompanying finding that Berg-Sonne teaches or
suggests that each infrared sensor array includes a two-
dimensional array of infrared emission sensors. In other words,
even assuming that the Final Action is correct to analogize an
“infrared motion sensor” to a[n] “infrared sensor array,” such a
finding by itself is insufficient to support the conclusion in the
Final Action that the “infrared motion sensors” each include a
two-dimensional array of infrared emission sensors.
Appeal Br. 8–9 (emphases added).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument quoted above, which
is not commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection that relies upon Kleihorst
as teaching or suggesting “each infrared sensor array includes a two-
dimensional array of infrared emission sensors” Final Act. 8 (citing
Kleihorst ¶ 55). Kleihorst, directed to a system and method for 2D
occupancy sensing (see Title), discloses:
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
10
A particular embodiment of a motion detection device
which may be used in embodiments of the present invention is a
device as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,786,804, presently only
known for its use in optical mice. Such motion detection device
comprises a two-dimensional array of photosensors for forming
low-resolution frames of 4000 pixels or below. . . .
Kleihorst ¶ 55 (emphasis added).
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Berg-Sonne and
Kleihorst teaches or suggests all the limitations, and we particularly agree
that Kleihorst in paragraph 55 teaches or suggests the claimed “plurality of
infrared sensor arrays,” “wherein each infrared sensor array includes a two-
dimensional array of infrared emission sensors,” as recited in claim 1.
(b) Kleihorst does not Teach Away from the Claimed Invention
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta
Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). A
reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for
an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily
skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
In alleging that Kleihorst teaches away from the claimed invention,
Appellant argues “IR detectors are used in Kleihorst in a completely different
manner than by mounting to the ceiling. Indeed, paragraph [0048] of
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
11
Kleihorst provides an occupancy detection system with devices in the
horizontal plane.” Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 9–15.
In response, the Examiner finds:
Kleihorst explicitly teaches the mounting of sensor devices to
the ceiling was known at the time of the invention (See
Kleihorst Paragraph Number [0007]). While the Kleihorst
reference speaks in to using cameras, Paragraph Number [0048]
teaches the use of IR detectors or other motion detection
devices in the same manner. That both references contemplates
several different types of sensors, Applicant’s arguments that
the Kleihorst reference “rejects the ceiling-mounted camera
based system” is erroneous. Berg-Sonne teaches the use of IR
sensors placed around the room to detect presence of room
occupants. Kleihorst furthers the teachings of the use of IR
sensors by teaching the use of IR sensors to detect presence in
addition to the multiple placement around the room in
overlapping configurations. Kleihorst also teaches that IR
sensors are substitutable for camera sensors (See citations
above), for those IR sensors to be positioned around a room
with a downward viewing angle, and it was known for cameras
to be mounted in the ceiling. Therefore one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found the combination of teachings of Berg-
Sonne and Kleihorst obvious and teach that IR sensors can be
placed in the ceiling with overlapping configurations to
determine occupancy. Examiner additionally notes that
Appellant's arguments regarding teaching away are incomplete
in that they do not demonstrate that the prior art reference
teaches a different mounting system than that which is
described by the claims and asserted no discovery [of mounting
in the ceiling] beyond that which was known to the prior art
[can mount in ceiling; downward viewing angles] (See MPEP
2145(X)(D)(l)). Accordingly Examiner asserts that the prior art
references do not teach away from the use of IR sensors
mounted in the ceiling.
Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
12
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and legal conclusions of
obviousness because we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading Kleihorst, would not be discouraged from following either path set
out in the reference, nor would they be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the Applicant.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2–6, 10, and 12–14, which fall
therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. § 103 Rejection R3 of Claims 15–17 and 21–22
Issue 2
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 1–4) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst, and Korecki is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “[a] method of assigning work spaces in a hoteling system,” that
includes, inter alia, the steps of “detecting infrared emissions within
individual work spaces in an open work area using a plurality of infrared
sensor arrays mounted to a ceiling over the open work area in a M-by-N grid
pattern, where M and N are each integers greater than or equal to two,” and
“wherein the infrared sensor arrays each include a plurality of sensors, and
wherein each infrared sensor array is arranged so that field of view patterns
of the sensors therein extend into the open work area in a P-by-Q grid
pattern,” as recited in claim 15?
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
13
Analysis
Appellant merely alleges “[i]n contrast to Claim 1, Claim 15 is
rejected based on a proposed combination of Berg-Sonne and Kleihorst with
Korecki. . . . [but] Korecki fails to cure the above-noted deficiencies of
Berg-Sonne and Kleihorst and is merely cited for discussion relating to
‘assigning a work space that has been determined to be unoccupied to an
individual.’ Thus, for the reasons discussed above with respect to Claim [1],
Appellants respectfully submit that the rejection of Claim 15 is improper and
should be reversed.” Appeal Br. 14.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments for the reasons discussed
above with respect to Rejection R1 of claim 1 (Issue 1).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 15, and grouped claims 16, 17, 21, and 22, which fall
therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
3. § 103 Rejection R5 of Claim 26
Issue 3
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 15–19; Reply Br. 1–4) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst, Spero, and MacGregor is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “[a] hoteling system for an open work area that includes a
plurality of modular work spaces, each modular work space of the plurality
of modular work spaces bounded on at least three sides by modular furniture
extending partway from a floor of the open work area toward a ceiling above
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
14
the open work area, each modular work space comprising at most one chair
and at most one modular desk,” wherein, inter alia, (a) “the first infrared
sensor array of the plurality of infrared sensor arrays is powered via a cable
that includes a conductor that provides a power signal to a light fixture that
is separate from the plurality of infrared sensor arrays and that is over at
least one of the modular work spaces of the plurality of modular work
spaces,” and (b) “the information received from the first infrared sensor
array is transmitted to the controller over the conductor,” as recited in
claim 26?
Analysis
Appellant initially contends “Spero and MacGregor fail to cure the
deficiencies of Berg-Sonne and Kleihorst noted above with respect to
Claim 1. Appellants respectfully submit that Claim 26 is distinguishable
over the proposed combination for at least the reasons presented above.”
Appeal Br. 15. As discussed above with respect to Rejection R1 of claim 1
(Issue 1), we disagree. Appellant submits additional reasons why the
rejection of claim 26 should be reversed, as discussed below.
The Examiner cites Spero in paragraph 181 as teaching or suggesting
(Limitation (a)) “’[a] power cable 172 single wire (it can be a single
conductor with the railing serving as the other conductor) supplies AC or
DC power, which for safety considerations can be low voltage. The power,
sensor and control circuitry package 173 makes contact 174 with the power
cable 172 and distributes power to the light generating discrete LED or
multiple-packaged facet elements 175.’” Final Act. 44–45 (quoting Spero
¶ 181). The Examiner further cites Spero at paragraph 142 as teaching or
suggesting (Limitation (b)) external control in which control signal 22 rides
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
15
on power signal 18 and enters via screw base 17 or an infrared or other
radiation detector provided that picks up the control signal. Final Act. 45.
Appellant alleges:
[N]one of these passages discuss “wherein the information
received from the first infrared sensor array is transmitted to
the controller,” over a conductor as recited in Claim 26. In
other words, the Final Action has it completely backwards:
what is claimed is information transmitted to the controller,
not information transmitted from the controller.
Appeal Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, “the Spero reference is
added to the combination of Berg-Sonne and Kleihorst only to teach that
power can be transmitted through a power cable as opposed to separate or
additional control cables. . . . Berg-Sonne and Kleihorst teach providing
instructions and signals wirelessly and through wires (See Final Rejection
pages 40-42) (Limitation (a)), but are silent with regard to providing these
instructions and signals through a power cable.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner further finds:
Spero teaches the use of a power cable that connects
from an AC or DC power that connects to a power controller
that operates an IR or other radiation detector which also can
activate a light fixture when the detector detects movement.
Examiner contends that this supplies power in the same manner
put forth in Appellant’s claim language, contrary to Appellant’s
assertion. Additionally, Appellant argues that [ ] Spero does not
teach the signal travelling from the sensor to the controller. This
is taught by the Berg-Sonne combination with Kleihorst in that
the Berg-Sonne teaches providing instructions and signals
wirelessly and through wires to control an IR array, but it is the
Spero reference that teaches that the power cable is what a
controller signal can travel on.
Ans. 7 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
16
Although Appellant partially responds to the Examiner’s findings in
the Reply Brief, we note Appellant did not respond to the Examiner’s
specific finding that the combination of Berg-Sonne with Kleihorst teaches
or suggests the signal travelling from the sensor to the controller. Instead,
Appellant misstates the Examiner’s rejection by asserting that the Examiner
merely relies upon the teachings of Berg-Sonne and Kleihorst to teach a
controller. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it is not
commensurate with the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Appellant further alleges the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous,
“because significant reconstruction of the controller of Berg-Sonne, which is
admitted to in the Final Action to not receive information transmitted over a
conductor that provides a power signal to a light fixture, would need to be
performed in order for the controller of Berg-Sonne to receive such
information. This point is completely unaddressed by the Examiner's
Answer.” Reply Br. 4.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument, and point to the Final Action
in which the Examiner provides a detailed rationale for the combination:
The combination of Berg-Sonne and Kleihorst and Spero
[is] directed to occupancy determination and organization
systems. The combination of Berg-Sonne and Kleihorst
discloses a plurality of infrared sensor arrays with field of view
patterns that project into workspaces and a controller that
determines the occupancy of workspaces based on the gathered
sensor data. Spero improves upon the combination of Berg-
Sonne and Kleihorst by disclosing powering light fixtures and
sensors using common cables and conductors that also transmit
information from the sensors to the fixtures. One of ordinary
skill in the art would be motivated to further include powering
light fixtures and sensors using common cables and conductors
that also transmit information from the sensors to the fixtures,
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
17
to efficiently convey both power and information using a single
cable which reduces the hardware needed along with the
associated implementation costs.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the system and method of a plurality of infrared sensor
arrays with field of view patterns that project into workspaces
and a controller that determines the occupancy of workspaces
based on the gathered sensor data in the combination of Berg-
Sonne and Kleihorst to further utilize powering light fixtures
and sensors using common cables and conductors that also
transmit information from the sensors to the fixtures as
disclosed in Spero, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in combination each element
merely would have performed the same function as it did
separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Final Act. 21–22 (referring to Rejection R2 of claim 7); and see Final
Act. 46 (referring to Rejection R5 of claim 26, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the
art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to
claim 7.”).
We disagree with Appellant, and note Appellant has not demonstrated
that the Examiner’s proffered combination of references would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Nor has Appellant provided objective
evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides
“operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak
Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
18
or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 26, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 26.
4. Rejections R2 and R4 of Claims 7–9, 19, and 20
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejections R2 and R4 of claims 7–9, 19, and 20 under § 103
(see Appeal Br. 19), we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Arguments not made are waived.4
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1–4) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections R1
through R5 of claims 1–10, 12–17, 19–22, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.

4 Appellant merely argues, “[e]ach dependent claim is allowable at least for
similar reasons as its respective base claim, and further in view of the
additional material recited therein, because the additionally cited
reference(s) do not cure the deficiencies of the references cited against the
independent claims.” Appeal Br. 19.
Appeal 2020-002509
Application 14/521,498
19
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis /
References Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 10,
12–14 103
Obviousness
Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst
1–6, 10,
12–14
7–9 103
Obviousness
Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst,
Spero
7–9
15–17,
21–22 103
Obviousness
Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst,
Korecki
15–17,
21–22
19, 20 103
Obviousness
Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst,
Korecki, Spero
19, 20
26 103
Obviousness
Berg–Sonne, Kleihorst,
Spero, MacGregor
26
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–
17, 19–22,
26

FINALITY AND 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)(1)(iv). See
37C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED