Ex Parte Ahmed et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 201713176582 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/176,582 07/05/2011 Osman Ahmed 2011P12226US (1867-0214) 4822 28524 7590 11/08/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER RAPHAEL, COLLEEN M Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1756 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/08/2017 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OSMAN AHMED and MAXIMILIAN FLEISCHER Appeal 2017-004204 Application 13/176,5821 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—35 and 41—50.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The Applicants (hereinafter “Appellants”) state that the real party in interest is “Siemens Aktiengesellschaft.” Appeal Brief filed on March 7, 2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 3. 2 Appeal Br. 7—15; Reply Brief filed on January 4, 2017, hereinafter “Reply Br.,” 3—6; Non-Final Office Action (notice emailed on October 7, 2015) hereinafter “Non-Final Act.,” 2—12; Examiner’s Answer (notice emailed on November 4, 2016), hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—15. Appeal 2017-004204 Application 13/176,582 A. BACKGROUND The Appellants disclose an environmentally responsive building that includes a plurality of panels (i.e., an array of windows and/or building panels) configured to generate an output product from environmental inputs, at least one field controller to monitor and control the panel(s), and a supervisory controller that monitors and controls the operation of the field controller(s) as a function of the environment. Specification filed on July 5, 2011, hereinafter “Spec.,” 17. Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 17 of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), as follows (emphases added): 1. An environmentally responsive building comprising: a plurality of panels associated with the building and configured to generate at least one output product using at least one environmental input; a storage system associated with the building and connected to said plurality of panels for storing the at least one output product; at least one field controller operatively associated with one or more of said plurality ofpanels to modify the generation of output product by the associated panel or panels', and a supervisory controller operably coupled to said at least one field controller and configured to direct said field controller in response to environmental conditions at the building or to a condition of the building. B. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections, which are as follows (Ans. 2—11; Non-Final Act. 2—12): I. claims 1, 16—19, and 26 as being anticipated under 2 Appeal 2017-004204 Application 13/176,582 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) byKousa;3 II. claims 2—5, 8, 9, 25, 28—30, 35, and 41—434 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kousa in view of Skiles; III. claims 6, 7, 20-22, 31, and 44 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kousa in view of Skiles and further in view of Halmann et al. (Halmann);5 IV. claims 13, 15, 49, and 50 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kousa in view of Skiles and further in view of Farsad et al. (Farsad);6 V. claims 10-12, 32—34, and 45—48 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kousa in view of Skiles and further in view of Maschke;7 VI. claim 14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 3 US 5,851,309 A, issued Dec. 22, 1998. 4 The Examiner includes claim 23 in the statement of the § 103 rejection over Kousa and Skiles et al. (US 2009/0026063 Al, published Jan. 29, 2009; hereinafter “Skiles”) but does not set forth any analysis or reasoning for claim 23. Ans. 4—8. The Examiner, however, includes claim 23 in the § 103 rejection over Kousa, Skiles, and Bocarsly et al. (US 8,313,634 B2, issued Nov. 20, 2012; hereinafter “Bocarsly”) in Rejection VII below, finds Kousa and Skiles do not disclose the limitations of claim 23, and concludes it would have been obvious to modify Kousa, as modified by Skiles, to include Bocarsly’s conversion system to arrive at a building including the limitations of claim 23. Id. at 10-11. Therefore, we understand claim 23 to be rejected over Kousa, Skiles, and Bocarsly, not over Kousa and Skiles alone. 5 US 4,478,699, issued Oct. 23, 1984. 6 US 8,137,444 B2, issued Mar. 20, 2012. 7 DE 10 2006 016 333 Al, published Oct. 18, 2007. 3 Appeal 2017-004204 Application 13/176,582 over Kousa in view of Skiles and Farsad and further in view of Maschke; VII. claims 23 and 24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kousa in view of Skiles and further in view of Bocarsly; and VIII. claim 27 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kousa in view of Skiles and further in view of Fujishima et al. (Fujishima).8 C. DISCUSSION Anticipation Rejection of claims 1, 16—19, and 26 Claims 1, 16—19, and 26 are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kousa. The Appellants argue the claims together (Appeal Br. 7—9). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Kousa describes every limitation recited in claim 1 (Ans. 2—3, 12; Non-Final Act. 2—3). The Examiner finds that Kousa discloses a building having a solar energy collecting system, multiple stepper controllers (i.e., field controllers), and a micro processer system (i.e., supervisory controller) that is operably coupled to the stepper controllers to adjust concentrating reflectors in response to the amount of radiation present (i.e., an environmental condition at the building). Ans. 12. The Appellants contend Kousa does not disclose or suggest the supervisory controller recited in claim 1, and that the Examiner has failed to 8 US 6,939,611 B2, issued Sept. 6, 2005. 4 Appeal 2017-004204 Application 13/176,582 articulate how Kousa discloses the supervisory controller limitations. Appeal Br. 8—9. The Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Kousa discloses hybrid thermal and electric solar energy collectors that can be installed in buildings. Kousa 5:51—65. Specifically, Kousa describes a micro processor system 300, which includes various components, such as a central processing unit 301, and is coupled to multiple stepper motor controllers 307 “used to drive stepper motors, such as positioning the reflectors.” Id. 40:14— 25; Fig. 40. Kousa discloses a radiation scanner 340 (including a scanner motor 356) and radiation sensors 344 connected to the micro processor 300. Id. 44:38—61, 50:63—68. The micro processor determines an angle of incidence based upon inputs from radiation sensors 344 for different positions of the radiation scanner 340 to obtain an optimum position for solar collectors. Id. 44:38—61, 50:63—68, 51:1—31. In other words, the micro processor determines an optimum position at which the stepper motor controllers 307 should position a collector so a desired amount of solar radiation (i.e., an environmental condition) is directed to the solar collector. As a result, the disclosure of Kousa supports the Examiner’s findings with regard to the supervisory controller of claim 1. Moreover, Kousa discloses a building 124 that includes a solar energy collector 120 having a concentrating reflector 110 and a horizontal energy converter 150. Kousa 14:41—54. Kousa discloses: sheets 194, 195, 194a, which can be used to form the reflector 110 and elevators 214, 220; pulleys 230, 232; and stepper motors 231, 233, which are used to change the position and/or angle of the sheets. Id. 21:43—22:59, 41:19-22, 41:29-36. As stated above, Kousa discloses that the stepper motor controllers 307 drive 5 Appeal 2017-004204 Application 13/176,582 the stepper motors to position the reflector. Id. 40:14—25. Kousa further discloses that the position and/or angle of the reflector 110 can be adjusted based upon a relative elevation angle 109 of the sun, which is calculated by the micro processor, based upon inputs from the radiation scanner. Id. 17:39-43, 18:50-53, 48:5A-67, 49:1-22. In response to the Examiner’s findings in the Examiner’s Answer, the Appellants assert the Examiner still has not articulated how the micro processor of Kousa directs field controllers in response to environmental conditions at a building or to a condition of the building, as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 4. However, claim 1 does not limit the “environmental conditions at the building” or “a condition of the building” and the Appellants do not define such language to exclude the radiation levels measured by the system of Kousa. Indeed, the Appellants’ Specification states: The supervisory controller may also incorporate its own environmental sensors 25a that sense environmental conditions relevant to the function of the panels. For instance, the sensors 25a may sense solar intensity. Spec. 136. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that the micro processor of Kousa directs the stepper controllers in response to environmental conditions at the building (i.e., a measured radiation level) comports with the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 in view of the Appellants’ disclosure. In view of the above, the disclosure of Kousa supports the Examiner’s findings with regard to the supervisory controller recited in claim 1 and the Appellants’ arguments do not direct us to a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. 6 Appeal 2017-004204 Application 13/176,582 The Appellants do not argue claims 16—19 and 26 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. For the reasons stated above and those discussed in the Examiner’s Answer, we uphold the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 16—19, and 26. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 2—15, 20—25, 27—35, and 41—50 For the rejections of claims 2—15, 20-25, 27—35, and 41—50, the Appellants merely reiterate the arguments set forth in support of the patentability of claim 1 and contend Skiles, Halmann, Farsad, Maschke, Bocarsly, and Fujishima do not remedy the deficiencies of Kousa discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 10—15. These rejections include independent claims 28 and 41, which recite field controllers and a supervisory controller similar to those of claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Skiles, Halmann, Farsad, Maschke, Bocarsly, or Fujishima. The Appellants present new arguments regarding the limitations of claim 9 at pages 5—6 of the Reply Br. The Appellants have not shown good cause why these arguments could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, we will not consider the argument newly raised in the Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). For these reasons and those discussed in the Examiner’s Answer, we uphold the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 2—15, 20—25, 27—35, and 41—50. 7 Appeal 2017-004204 Application 13/176,582 D. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—35 and 41—50 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation