Ademco Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2020001749 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 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.
14/554,843 11/26/2014 Hari Thiruvengada H0029944-
US-2/1264-035US0
9786
158295 7590 06/01/2021
RESIDEO/SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT
1625 RADIO DRIVE, SUITE 100
WOODBURY, MN 55125
EXAMINER
SAAVEDRA, EMILIO J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
raquel.tabor@resideo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARI THIRUVENGADA, PALLAVI DHARWADA,
WENDY FOSLIEN, and ANAND THARANATHAN

Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–11, and 14–19. Claims 3 and
12–13 were previously cancelled. Amendment With RCE (filed November
27, 2017) 3, 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ademco Inc.
Appeal Brief filed July 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), 3.
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods for determining and
providing an energy management recommendation to a user based on usage
analytics and an energy usage profile. Spec.2 2:6–12. The energy
management recommendation “can take into account energy usage analytics
of a number of appliances and/or an energy usage profile in providing the
user with a number of tailored recommendations for managing their energy
usage.” Id. at 2:15–18. The energy management recommendation can help
the user reduce or manage energy usage associated with a residential or
commercial building or correct a malfunction in an appliance. Id. at 2:13–
15, 8:10–12.
The energy usage profile can be created based on the number of
interactions between the user and the computing device. Spec. 6:9–10.
“The computing device 102 can be, for example, a thermostat, a desktop
computing device, a laptop computing device, or a portable handheld
computing device, such as, for instance, a portable handheld mobile phone,
media player, or scanner.” Id. at 3:10–13.
The computer device provides the energy management
recommendations to the user. Spec. 3:9–10. Further, the computing device
can create a list of maintenance items associated with the appliances, list the
items on the user’s mobile telephone, and/or order the maintenance items for
the user through an internet connection. Id. at 9:4–10.

2 We use “Spec.” to refer to the Specification filed November 26, 2014;
“Final Act.” to refer to the Final Office Action filed December 3, 2018;
“Ans.” to refer to the Examiner’s Answer filed November 6, 2019; and
“Reply Br.” to refer to the Reply Brief filed January 6, 2020.

Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
3
Independent claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable
medium. Dependent claims 2 and 4–9 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 19 are directed to a computing device.
Dependent claims 11–18 depend from claim 10. Appellant first argues
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6), which is reproduced below as illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing
instructions which, when executed by a processor, provide a
computer implemented method for providing energy
management recommendations for operating one or more
appliances including a furnace and/or an air conditioner, the
method comprising:

over time, recording a number of user-initiated interactions
between a user and a user interface of a computing device, the
recorded user-initiated interactions including interactions in
which the user provides operating instructions that affect a
temperature set point of the furnace and/or air conditioner;

determining an energy usage profile for the user based at least in
part on the recorded user interactions;

determining an energy management recommendation that is
tailored to the particular user based at least in part on the
energy usage profile for the user;

presenting the energy management recommendation to the user
via a display of the computing device;

allowing a user to accept the presented energy management
recommendation via the user interface of the computing
device; and

subsequently operating the one or more appliances in accordance
with the accepted energy management recommendation.

Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
4
Appeal Br. 16.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references.
Name3 Reference Date
Weaver US 2010/0082174 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
Playfair US 2012/0296799 A1 Nov. 22, 2012
Lukas US 7,505,921 B1 Mar. 17, 2009
Nichols US 2005/0125102 A1 June 9, 2005
Mozer, “The Neural Network House: An Environment that Adapts to its
Inhabitants” AAAI Technical Report SS-98-02 (1998)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being Weaver, Playfair, and Mozer. Final Act. 3–11.4
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weaver, Playfair, Mozer, and Lukas. Id. at 12–15.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weaver, Playfair, Mozer, and Nichols. Id. at 15–16.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made
are waived. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 The Examiner relies on the showing for claims 6–8 for claims 15–18,
which claim the same subject matter respectively but depend from claim 10
instead of claim 1. Final Act. 12.
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
5
ISSUES
No. 1. Would a person of ordinary skill have had reason to combine
Weaver and Mozer to teach or suggest “user-initiated interactions,” as
recited in claim 1? Appeal Br. 7–10.
No. 2. Does Weaver teach “the energy profile is further based at least
in part on a choice made by the user in response to a past energy
management recommendation,” as recited in claim 2? Id. at 10–11.
No. 3. Does Weaver teach “the energy usage analytics are presented
to the user in a bar chart,” as recited in claim 5? Id. at 11–12.
No. 4. Does the combination of Weaver, Playfair, and Mozer teach a
controller configured to “determine an energy usage profile for [a] user
based, at least in part, on[] recorded user-initiated interactions of the user,
wherein the energy usage profile comprises a level of energy conservation
associated with the user; . . . determine energy management
recommendations for the user, at least some of the energy management
recommendations are based at least in part on the energy usage profile . . . ;
[and] display on the display of the computing device the energy management
recommendations,” as recited in claim 10? Id. at 12–13.
No. 5. Does the combination of Weaver, Playfair, and Mozer teach
“the level of energy conservation associated with the user is based at least in
part on a choice made by the user in response to a past energy management
recommendation,” as recited in claim 11? Id. at 13.
No. 6. Does the combination of Weaver, Playfair, and Mozer teach a
controller configured to: “record a number of interactions over time between
a user and [a] user interface of [a] computing device, wherein at least some
of the interactions are user-initiated interactions;” or to determine updated
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
6
energy management recommendations based on such interactions,” as
recited in claim 19? Id. at 13–14.
No. 7. Does the combination of Weaver, Playfair, and Mozer teach
the limitations of claims 9 and 18? Id. at 14–15.
CONTENTIONS
Issue No. 1
The Examiner interprets Weaver’s teaching that the user inputs
“energy guidelines, answers, and inputs” to an energy management system
as “user interactions” between a user and a user interface. Final Act. 4
(citing Weaver ¶¶ 43, 79, 81–83). The Examiner finds that “recorded
interactions” are taught by Weaver in that “[i]nterviews and negotiations are
made to establish user defined instructions on how to operate devices,”
which are “recorded” as “user patterns and preferences.” Id. (citing Weaver
¶¶ 79–89).
The Examiner finds that Weaver does not “explicitly teach user-
initiated interactions” and cites Mozer for that limitation. Final Act. 5.
Mozer is relied on for its teachings of an automated home control system
where “[u]ser input actions to devices, including thermostat settings, are
monitored to determine inhabitant preferences and setpoint profile.” Id. at
5–6 (citing Mozer, 110–111, col. 2 [“ACHE”5], 110, col. 1 [“Introduction,”
Abs.], 113, col 1).
The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill would have had
reason to modify Weaver’s system for adjusting household energy usage
(see, e.g., Weaver ¶ 16) with Mozer’s ACHE, “which “incorporates
monitoring of user interactions.” Final Act. 6. Further, a person of ordinary

5 ACHE is “adaptive control of home environments.” Mozer, 110.
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
7
skill would have been motivated to do so “in order to more easily obtain a
user settings of devices and usage patterns.” Id. (citing Mozer, 110 Abs.,
cols. 1, 113).
Appellant first argues that Weaver does not teach “user-initiated
interactions” because Weaver uses an “energy manager” and the energy
manager has a dialogue with the user. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Weaver ¶ 42);
Reply Br. 4, 6. The Examiner responds by pointing out that Weaver “does
imply ‘user-initiated interactions,’” including in paragraph 32 of Weaver.
Ans. 4 (citing Weaver ¶¶ 32, 41, 37). The Examiner summarizes paragraph
32 as making it “clear that a user can initiate a modification to an energy
consuming device, such as turning on a lamp by sending an instruction via
email.” Id. (citing Weaver ¶ 32). According to the Examiner, Mozer adds to
what is already implied in Weaver by showing “user-initiated interaction” is
“routine and conventional interaction.” Id. The Examiner contends that the
fact that Weaver teaches one way of inputting user settings does not
preclude or prohibit “other user input modalities.” Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that, even if Mozer teaches user-initiated interaction,
“the Examiner failed to establish that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Weaver’s
method in the manner proposed by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 7. In
disputing the Examiner’s finding that the Weaver and Mozer combination
teaches or suggests monitoring user-initiated interactions, Appellant argues
the Examiner failed to establish why it would have been obvious to modify
Weaver for “recording” those “user-initiated interactions.” Id. at 7–8.
With respect to the finding of motivation for the combination based
upon more easily obtaining user input for device settings and usage patterns,
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
8
Appellant argues that Weaver “already describes a system that obtains user
input such as through a dialogue generated by the energy manager 100.”
Appeal Br. 8 (citing Weaver ¶ 42 (“Are you cold, hot, or just right now?”)).
Thus, there would have been no motive to look to a secondary reference. Id.
Appellant contends Weaver does not require user settings because “the
energy manager 100 compares the measured energy usage to an energy
usage rule and modifies the energy usage based on the comparison.” Id.
(citing Weaver ¶¶ 4, 20). Appellant also argues that Weaver uses a “smart
meter” to measure a device’s energy consumption and not user settings. Id.
(citing Weaver ¶ 18).
The Examiner asserts one reason for combining Mozer with Weaver is
that user settings are part of the knowledge generally available to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 8 (citing inter alia KSR International Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). The Examiner
argues that the existence of more options for providing user settings makes it
easier for the user. Id.
Appellant argues the system of Mozer is “passive” and does not
require user input because it “essentially programs itself.” Appeal Br. 9
(citing Mozer, 1, col. 2, ll. 12–14). In contrast, Appellant argues someone
has to program other automated homes, which typically inhabitants do not
want to do. Id. Appellant argues an automated home is “more ‘costly’” and
does not outweigh the drawbacks. Id. (citing Mozer, Abs.).
The Examiner further clarifies that Mozer is cited to show traditional
manual input methods. Ans. 7 (citing Mozer, 110, col. 2, 111–112, col. 2,
113, col. 2). Thus, Mozer teaches “traditional manual input methods” as
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
9
well as the “self-programming feature.” Id. The Examiner points out that
Mozer “never states how costly their system could be.” Id.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant argues that claim 1 does not specify user
interaction but rather “the user provides operating instructions that affect a
temperature set point of [a] furnace and/or air conditioner.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant also argues the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 32 of Weaver is
to control of a lamp and not the claimed “furnace and/or air conditioner.”
Id. Appellant argues the Examiner’s contention that “Weaver does not
prohibit” different input methods does not support an obviousness finding
based on another input method. Id. at 5.
Issue No. 2
The Examiner finds Weaver teaches periodic questions are made
which “mean that questions are previously made, and negotiations are
reinforcement of how the programming functions means that the
recommendations also build on past interaction with user.” Final Act. 6
(citing Weaver ¶¶ 78–81, 42–43).
Appellant responds that claim 2 requires “pro-active steps” by the
user. Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Weaver ¶ 43). Appellant argues “Weaver
appears to indicate that the pro-active steps are taken without user approval.”
Id. at 11.
In the Answer, the Examiner contends “Weaver implies that the
energy usage profile is adjusted based on the system’s knowledge of user
preferences that are made based on periodic adjustment and questions made
by the system,” which implies the system has a past energy
recommendation. Ans. 9. The Examiner points out that paragraph 80 of
Weaver teaches that the system has made a recommendation and the user is
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
10
required to make a “choice of answering in the positive or negative.” Ans. 9
(citing Weaver ¶¶ 80, 79, 42–43). The Examiner cites to the
recommendation taught as the recited “past recommendation” and the
positive or negative responses are a choice. Id. The user’s responsive
choice to accept a recommendation also means the user approves of the
recommendation.
Appellant responds that “knowledge of user preferences” does not
equate to “past energy recommendations.” Reply Br. 7.
Issue No. 3
The Examiner finds the combination of Weaver, Playfair and Mozer
taught a bar chart as recited in claims 5 and 14. Final Act. 8. Specifically,
the Examiner finds that Weaver taught “a display for module for
communicating to the user information such as charts and graphs relating to
the energy management system.” Id. (citing Weaver ¶ 49).
Appellant argues paragraph 49 of Weaver disclosure of “icons,
graphs, [and] pie charts” would not have taught a bar chart. App. Br. 11.
The Examiner responds that Weaver discloses “obvious and known variants
for presentation of data, including bar charts.” Ans. 9. The Examiner also
points to disclosures in Playfair and the MPEP for additional support. Id. at
10 (citing Playfair ¶ 87; MPEP § 2144.04).
Appellant’s Reply Brief repeats the argument that Weaver does not
specifically disclose a bar chart. Reply Br. 8. The additional references
cited are argued as improperly combined or not analogous. Id. at 9.
Issue Nos. 4–7
Appellant does not separately argue Issue Nos. 4–7. For each issue,
Appellant argues that patentability is based on the reasons discussed with
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
11
respect to the corresponding independent claim or dependent claim from
which the claim depends. See Appeal Br. 12 (Issue No. 4); 13 (Issue Nos. 5,
6); 14–15 (Issue No. 7).
ANALYSIS
Issue No. 1
“Before considering the rejections . . ., we must first [determine the
scope of] the claims . . . .” In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA
1974). During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833
(Fed.Cir.1990). At issue here is the interpretation of “user-initiated
interactions,” as recited in claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that
Weaver implies “user-initiated interactions between a user and an interface
of a computing device.” As did the Examiner in making the finding that
user-initiated interaction is implied by Weaver, we find the term to be broad.
For example, there is nothing in the Specification that requires the user to be
a human being or that limits the user-initiated interaction to a particular
device.
We are not persuaded that interaction by Weaver’s energy manager is
not “user-initiated.” However, even assuming a human user is required to
“initiate” the interaction, we agree with the Examiner that Mozer shows a
user as an inhabitant, a human being. Final Act. 5–6; Mozer, 110, col. 2.
Our finding is supported by paragraph 42 of Weaver, which is relied on for
the Examiner’s finding that Weaver teaches “user interaction” and
Appellant’s argument that Weaver does not teach “user-initiated
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
12
interaction.” Final Act. 4 (citing inter alia Weaver ¶ 42); App. Br. 8 (citing
Weaver ¶ 42) (emphasis added). Paragraph 42 of Weaver discloses that
“user instruction is a result of dialogue generated by energy manager 100
with user 255.”
That the Examiner cites to a user controlling a lamp as a “user-
interaction” does not mean that Weaver does not teach controlling a furnace
or air conditioner. Weaver specifically teaches controlling operation of “a
furnace and/or an air conditioner.” Final Act. 3 (citing Weaver ¶¶ 53
(“heating-cooling thermostat controller that connects to the home air
conditioner/heater.”), 38, 79 (HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air
conditioning)). Mozer, not Weaver, is cited for “user-initiated interaction.”
Final Act. 11.
We also agree with the Examiner’s rationale that a person of ordinary
skill would have had reason to modify Weaver’s system for adjusting
household energy usage with Mozer’s monitoring of user interactions. Final
Act. 6. As discussed above, the Examiner’s finding that “user-initiated
interaction” is “implied” from Weaver’s teachings show that the difference
between Weaver and the claim is minimal. This finding supports the
conclusion of obviousness and is not specifically disputed by Appellant. Cf.
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1583 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (affirming obviousness based in part on difference between prior
art and the claimed inventions being relatively minor).
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Appellant’s
contention that it would not have been obvious to modify Weaver to show
“recording” the “user-initiated interactions” is not persuasive because the
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
13
Examiner relies on Weaver alone to teach recording “user interactions.”
Final Act. 4.
Appellant’s argument that combining Weaver and Mozer would not
be necessary because Weaver already describes a system obtains “user
settings of devices and user patterns” does not explain why a person of
ordinary skill would not look to other methods of user interaction. See
Appeal Br. 8. More options allow for the selection of the one which
provides the easiest way a user can obtain settings. See Ans. 8. We agree
with the Examiner that the knowledge generally available to a person of
ordinary skill in the art is part of the rationale for combining two references.
Id. (citing inter alia KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007)).
Appellant’s arguments about cost with respect to Mozer are not
persuasive. As the Examiner contends, Mozer “never states how costly their
system could be.” Ans. 7. Cost is not a reason why a person of ordinary
skill would not combine Mozer with Weaver. The fact that a “combination
would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons” does not mean
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not make the combination. In
re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The only relevant
question is technological incompatibility. Id.
Neither are we persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Mozer teaches
away from manual control as something to be avoided. Reply Br. 6 (citing
Mozer, 110, col. 2). Mozer discloses an automated heating and cooling
system for a house but does not do so by disparaging or suggesting manual
control be eliminated. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
14
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.”) (emphasis added). Mozer mentions
manual control in the limited context of “a training signal for ACHE [the
automated system].” Mozer, 110, col. 2.
Issue No. 2
We agree with the Examiner that Weaver teaches making a
recommendation based on the user’s prior energy preferences. The user is
required to make a “choice of answering in the positive or negative.”
Appellant does not persuasively argue why a recommendation based on
prior user preferences is not “a past energy recommendation.” That they are
one in the same is shown by the periodic questions and responses that occur
between the system and the user. Final Act. 6 (citing Weaver ¶¶ 78–81, 42–
43); Ans. 9. There can be no questioning about a change unless there is a
“past energy recommendation” to change.
Issue No. 3
There is no special meaning asserted for a “bar chart.” We agree with
the Examiner’s finding that a bar chart is a well understood way of
presenting data. Final Act. 7; Ans. 9. Weaver paragraph 49 is cited in the
Final Action as disclosing a “graphical display module” and additional
examples of commonly used features of such a display are cited, including
“graphs.” Final Act. 7. As the Examiner finds, a person of ordinary skill
would have understood the disclosure in paragraph 49 of Weaver to include
a “bar chart.” Ans. 9–10.

Appeal 2020-001749
Application 14/554,843
15
Issue Nos. 4–7
Appellant does not separately argue Issue Nos. 4–7. The rejections to
the claims to which those issues are directed are therefore sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–8, 10,
11, 14–18
103 Weaver, Playfair,
Mozer
1, 2, 4–8,
10, 11,
14–18

19 103 Weaver, Playfair,
Mozer, Lukas
19
9 103 Weaver, Playfair,
Mozer, Nichols
9
Overall
Outcome
1–20

1, 2, 4–11,
14–19

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