Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2022

2020006455 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2022)

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. 15/374,595 12/09/2016 Leah Nicolich-Henkin 1576-2019 7107 10800 7590 01/27/2022 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEAH NICOLICH-HENKIN, CORY HENSON, and JOAO P. SOUSA Appeal 2020-006455 Application 15/374,595 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18, which are all of the claims pending in the application. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006455 Application 15/374,595 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims are directed to dialog interaction with a user interface device in a distributed automation system. See Spec. ¶ 5. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for dialog interaction with a user interface in a distributed automation system comprising: receiving with a network interface device in a user interface device, a service message from a home automation device in the distributed automation system; identifying, with the processor, a state of a dialog manager that the processor executes with stored program instructions stored in a memory of the user interface device in response to receiving the service message; generating, with the processor and an output device, a natural language output message based at least in part on a device identifier parameter in the service message and a plurality of natural language templates stored in the memory in response to the dialog manager being in an idle state; storing, with the processor, the service message in a priority queue in the memory based on a priority level parameter corresponding to the service message in response to the dialog manager being in an active state; identifying, with the processor, a first room location of the user interface device; identifying, with the processor, a second room location of the home automation device based on the service message; and increasing, with the processor, the priority level of the priority level parameter in the service message in response to the first room location and the second room location corresponding to a single room. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) (disputed limitations shown in italics). Appeal 2020-006455 Application 15/374,595 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relied on the following prior art as evidence: Name Reference Date Kaiser et al. (“Kaiser”) US 2008/0133812 A1 June 5, 2008 Farrell US 2015/0365787 A1 Dec. 17, 2015 Uppala et al. (“Uppala”) US 2016/0378080 A1 Dec. 29, 2016 REJECTION Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Uppala, Kaiser, and Farrell. Final Act. 4-14. OPINION In rejecting claim 1 for obviousness, the Examiner found that Farrell teaches the two “identifying” limitations, as well as the “increasing” limitation, as recited in claim 1. In particular, the Examiner found that paragraph 98 of Farrell teaches increasing the priority level of the priority level parameter in the service message because Farrell teaches that a computing device may notify users of their respective priorities. Final Act. 8; Ans. 13-16. Appellant argues that claim 1 is patentable because Uppala, Kaiser, and Farrell fail to teach or suggest making a change to a priority level of a service message based on two identified locations. Appeal Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellant argues that Farrell “only discloses changes in priority of users and fails to disclose the recited increase in priority level.” Id. at 9. Appellant argues that Farrell teaches, when multiple users are at the same location, the computing device determines the priority of each user and may notify the users of their priorities. Id. (citing Farrell ¶¶ 97, 98). Appeal 2020-006455 Application 15/374,595 4 Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Farrell, in combination with Uppala and Kaiser, teaches or suggests the “increasing” limitation, as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8-11. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently identified where the prior art teaches or suggests “increasing . . . the priority level of the priority level parameter in the service message in response to the first room location and the second room location corresponding to a single room,” as claim 1 requires. The Examiner has not sufficiently mapped the prior art to the recited elements in claim 1. For example, the Examiner relied on Uppala as teaching “a service message,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner, however, reproduced only the portion of paragraph 22 of Uppala that describes “the computing device 102, the home automation controller 104, and the home automation devices 106 may be configured to transmit and receive data with each other and/or other devices of the system 100 over the network 114.” Final Act. 5. In other words, the Examiner did not identify a particular service message in the prior art. Claim 1 further requires “a priority level parameter corresponding to the service message.” The Examiner found that Kaiser teaches that, if the target device’s activity status is busy, then the target device may not be able to receive and process the event, and the event may remain on the “to do” list until the target device’s activity status changes to idle. Id. (citing Kaiser ¶¶ 42, 52, 53, 57-60, Fig. 5). Again, the Examiner did not specifically point out where Kaiser teaches or suggests the claimed “priority level parameter corresponding to the service message.” The disputed “increasing” step, as recited in claim 1, further requires “the priority level of the priority level Appeal 2020-006455 Application 15/374,595 5 parameter in the service message.” The Examiner has not identified a sufficient teaching in the prior art. Instead, the Examiner relies on Farrell’s teaching of notifying users of the users’ priority. Such finding is insufficient to teach or suggest “increasing . . . the priority level of the priority level parameter in the service message in response to the first room location and the second room location corresponding to a single room” to an artisan of ordinary skill. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Uppala, Kaiser, and Farrell teaches or suggests the disputed “increasing” limitation, as recited in claim 1. For similar reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Uppala, Kaiser, and Farrell teaches or suggests the disputed “decreasing” limitation, as recited in claim 9. See Appeal Br. 13; Ans. 16-17. Accordingly, on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 10, which recites an “increase” limitation of similar scope. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, and 18, which fall with the independent claim from which they each depend. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). Appeal 2020-006455 Application 15/374,595 6 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 9-16, 18 103 Uppala, Kaiser, Farrell 1-7, 9-16, 18 REVERSED