COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: Electronic Temperature Control
An electronic arrangement for automatically changing and controlling the
ambient temperature in a building does obtain results different from the
results that may be achieved by the cited art and is considered patentable.
Final Action Reversed.
**************
Patent application 292,964 (Class 342-19.6) was filed on December 13, 1977
for an invention entitled ELECTRONIC TEMPERATURE CONTROL. The inventor is
David V. Reid. The Examiner in charge of the application issued a Final
Action on March 23, 1983 refusing to allow the application to proceed to
patent. The inventor attended the Hearing on July 18, 1984, and was
represented by his patent agent, Mr. T.S. Johnson.
The subject matter of this application relates to an electronic device
for automatically changing and controlling the ambient temperature in a
building. Figure 1 reproduced below, shows the arrangement.
<IMG>
The main components include timing devices, a memory component to store
predetermined times and functions, temperature set components, a tempera-
ture sensor, and a comparator unit. By means of these components and the
interconnecting circuitry, signals are matched from the time keeping
devices with those in the memory component to select a particular
temperature set which then sends signals to the comparator, which compares
them with signals from the temperature sensor, and an appropriate signal
is obtained to effect the desired heating or cooling.
In the Final Action the Examiner rejected the application for lack of
invention in view of United States patent
3,903,515 Sept. 2, 1975 Haydon et al
This patent is directed to a method and apparatus for controlling predetermined
functions at predetermined times, among them heating and air conditioning
systems.
The Examiner refused the application for lacking invention in view of the
Haydon patent, and in view of common general knowledge and structure known
in the art. He views Haydon as designed to control any kind of variables
or functions. Concerning Applicant's feature of comparing the building
temperatures with predetermined temperatures, the Examiner compares this
to a home thermostat.
In his response, Applicant maintains there is no indication in the Haydon
patent of how to control both heating and cooling means with a single tempera-
ture sensor. He says the Haydon system is concerned with operating a
specific function at a specific time and that it would turn the heating
or cooling system on or off at a specific time regardless of the desired
temperature in the building. Applicant refers to his system as controlling a
building temperature at one level during one period of the day and another
level during another period, and in his response submitted a claim for
consideration. At the Hearing he presented another claim which he feels better
defines his features.
The issue before the Board is whether or not there is patentable subject
matter in the application in view of the cited art. We will consider the claim
presented at the Hearing, which reads:
An electronic device for monitoring ambient temperature in a
building and for automatically and continuously operating
temperature controlling means to prevent the ambient temper-
ature from moving from a first temperature to a second
temperature during one selected period of a day and to
allow the ambient temperature to move under control to
such second temperature during another selected period of
the day, said device comprising electronic timekeeping means
for keeping time throughout the day, memory means for storing
at least two times of the day which determine such one and
another selected periods of the day, temperature setting means
for setting the first and second temperatures, electronic
selector means for selecting which of the first and second
temperatures determines the ambient temperature, means for compar-
ing the time from said timekeeping means with time stored in said
memory means and electronically activating the selector means to
select the first and second temperatures, temperature sensing
means for sensing the ambient temperature and electronic
comparator means for comparing the temperature sensed by said
temperature sensing means with the first temperature at the one
period of the day and to activate the temperature controlling
means only when the ambient temperature is between the first
and second temperatures to cause the ambient temperature to
move generally to the first temperature at such one period of
the day, and for comparing the temperature sensed with the
second temperature at the other period of the day and to
operate the temperature controlling means to allow the ambient
temperature to move to such second temperature without going
substantially therebeyond at such other period of the day.
At the Hearing Mr. Johnson emphasized the continuously operating temperature
controlling feature of Applicant's device. He referred to the Haydon reference
noting that it only provides for turning devices on or off for selected periods,
whereas Applicant provides a temperature means responsive to prevent an inside
ambient temperature moving from a first temperature to a second temperature
during one period of a day, and to allow the ambient temperature to move
under control to a second temperature without going substantially therebe-
yond at another period of the day. Mr. Reid presented a sample of his device
which he said included elements responding to two different temperatures to
obtain the operation he disclosed. He submitted two affidavits attesting to
the operability of his device. In these he refers to discussions between
himself and a company which did not accept that his device would obtain the
results, and he swears his invention would not have been obvious to one skilled
in the art.
The Examiner observed that Applicant's claim does not read on the Haydon patent,
and after looking at the sample felt that the device would function. He noted
however he was not sure the disclosure was sufficient. It was pointed out by
the Board that no objection to the disclosure was made in the Final Action. It
was further noted that in a previous Commissioner's Decision taken on this
application, it was found the disclosure was sufficient to enable a person
skilled in the art to obtain various elements to assemble Applicant's device.
The Examiner recognizes that so long as there is a proper disclosure, then the
claim is satisfactory when compared with the drawing.
It is useful at this point to recall that the disclosure, claims and drawings
of an application together form the specification. Section 36 of the Act lays
out the requirements of the disclosure and claims, and Section 39 pertains to
the drawings. The significance of the role each of the parts plays in a
specification is found in Western Electric Co, v Baldwin International Radio of
Canada 1934 SCR 570 at 579 and Consolboard Inc. v MacMillan Bloedel (Sask.)
Ltd. (1981) 1 S.C.R.p.504. Therefore, if by comparison of the words and the
drawings the subject matter is understandable, then the specification should be
acceptable.
Mr. Reid commented there were many ways of assembling his structure, for example using
digital or analog elements. He argued that he felt his diagram shows how to
link his comparator into his circuit, and his specification describes how to
derive benefits from his temperature settings including home and away con-
ditions. We note too, the Examiner remarked at the Hearing that a bit of
hindsight would be needed to arrange a thermostat having two settings into
a device similar to Applicant's structure. He noted further a person skilled
in the art knows of options available and their drawbacks.
We find no difficulty in understanding the claim when considered with the
disclosure and the drawings. In our opinion Applicant has presented a
combination of elements which obtains results different from the
results that may be achieved by the Haydon patent and which may not fairly
be said to be encompassed by Haydon. We would agree that Applicant's device is
directed to an advance in the art in view of the sample of the device and
the arguments presented at the Hearing, and the affidavits submitted subsequent-
ly thereto.
We recommend that the rejection of the application for lacking invention be
withdrawn and that the claim presented at the Hearing be accepted, and the
application returned for prosecution consistent with our findings.
A. McDonough M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Chairman Assistant Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings and the recommendation of the Patent Appeal Board.
Accordingly, I am remanding the application for prosecution consistent with
my decision.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated in Hull, Qu‚bec
this 6th. day of May, 1985
Agent for Applicant
D.S. Johnson, Q.C.
133 Richmond St. W.
Toronto, Ont.
M5H 2L7