Ex Parte Arensmeier

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

14705289 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

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.
14/705,289 05/06/2015 Jeffrey Neil Arensmeier 0315R-000855-US 3901
27572 7590 03/01/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
CROHN, MARK I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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):
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY NEIL ARENSMEIER
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—6, 9—16, 19, and 20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Emerson Electric Co., which, according to the Appeal
Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth
below:
A grading system, comprising:
a first heat flux module that determines a first heat flux for a first period
of a run cycle of a heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) system
of a building, wherein the HVAC system is in an OFF state during the first
period of the run cycle, and
wherein the first heat flux module determines the first heat flux for the
run cycle based on (i) a first return air temperature (RAT) of the HVAC
system measured using a RAT sensor at a starting time of the first period and
(ii) a second RAT of the HVAC system measured using the RAT sensor at an
ending time of the first period;
a second heat flux module that determines a second heat flux for a
second period of the run cycle of the HVAC system, wherein the HVAC
system is in an ON state during the second period of the run cycle, and
wherein the second heat flux module determines the second heat flux for
the run cycle based on a third RAT of the HVAC system measured using the
RAT sensor at a starting time of the second period and a fourth RAT of the
HVAC system measured using the RAT sensor at an ending time of the second
period;
a third heat flux module that determines a third heat flux for the run
cycle based on a sum of the first heat flux and the second heat flux;
a power module that determines a total power consumption of both
indoor and outdoor components of the HVAC system during the run cycle;
a grade determination module that determines a first grade for the
HVAC system based on the third heat flux of the run cycle and the power
consumption during the run cycle; and
a reporting module that generates a displayable report, the report
including the first grade of the HVAC system.
THE REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of
unpatentability:
2
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
Buda et al. (“Buda”)
An et al. (“An”)
Quam et al. (“Quam”)
US 2011/0144807 Al June 16,2011
US 2012/0330626 Al Dec. 27, 2012
US 2015/0127174 Al May 7, 2015
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4—11, and 14—20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable
over Buda in view of Quam.
2. Claim 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable
over Buda in view of Quam and An.
3. Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea) without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
To the extent that Appellant has presented substantive arguments for the
separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will address them
separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set
forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims is
unpatentable over the applied art, as well as being directed to a judicial exception,
and thus, judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal essentially for
3
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and add the
following for emphasis.
Rejection 1
The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 8—15 of the Final Office Action,
incorporated herein. The Examiner essentially relies upon Buda for teaching certain
claimed elements, and states that Buda does not refer to performance indicators such
as “grades,” so relies upon Quam for teaching grade determination and generating a
displayable report of a grade. Final Act. 10-12.
Appellant argues that Buda states that “the term heat pump active sub-cycle,
or HP AS, refers to the interval when the compressor unit of the heat pumping
system is consuming power.” Appeal Br. 19; Buda, 1 69. Appellant states that Buda
also teaches that “the term HIPS refers to the interval when the compressor unit
of the heat pumping system is not consuming power.” Buda, 169. Appellant
submits that HPAS and HPIS of Buda are periods (of time) when the compressor
unit is ON and OFF, respectively. Appeal Br. 19.
Appellant argues that the first and second heat fluxes of claim 1, however,
are not periods. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant argues that instead, claim 1 recites a first
heat flux for a first period of a run cycle, and a second heat flux for a second period
of the run cycle. Appellant argues that through the use of both heat flux and period,
such as “first heat flux for a first period” and “second heat flux for a second period,”
the first and second heat fluxes are clearly different than the first and second
periods of time. Id. Appellant argues that Buda and Quam are silent as to
determining a first heat flux for a first period of a run cycle and/or determining a
second heat flux for a second period of the run cycle, and thus, the Examiner failed to
provide aprima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 19.
4
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
We are unpersuaded by such argument for the reasons presented on pages 17—
18 of the Answer wherein the Examiner adequately explains how Buda meets these
argued claim limitations. The Examiner’s table presented on page 17 of the Answer
shows how the teachings of Buda suggest these claim elements, which we
incorporate herein.
Appellant next argues that Buda and Quam do not teach determining such a
first heat flux for a first period of a run cycle based on (i) a first return air
temperature (RAT) of the HVAC system measured using a RAT sensor at a
starting time of the first period and (ii) a second RAT of the HVAC system
measured using the RAT sensor at an ending time of the first period, and/or
determining such a second heat flux for a second period of the run cycle based on a
third RAT of the HVAC system measured using the RAT sensor at a starting time
of the second period and a fourth RAT of the HVAC system measured using the
RAT sensor at an ending time of the second period. Appeal Br. 20.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated reply made on pages 18—19 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains that the determination of RAT is a
determination of temperature that is comparable to the temperature measurements
shown in Figure 2 of Buda in reference to a prior art system. Therein, it is shown
that temperature measurements are taken at the beginning and end of each sub­
cycle (OFF sub-cycle: starting time of the first period/ ending time of the first
period and ON sub-cycle: starting time of the second period/ ending time of the
second period). The Examiner interprets heat flux as the heat transfer typically
tracked in HVAC system by temperature changes and used to compute the
efficiency of the HVAC system. Ans. 19. Appellant does not dispute this
5
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
interpretation of heat flux in the Appeal Brief, as pointed out by the Examiner on
page 21 of the Answer.2
Appellant argues that regarding determining the first heat flux for the first
run cycle based on a first return air temperature, the Examiner notes that
paragraph 24 of Buda states that “the interior temperature can be a return air
temperature from an intake area of an evaporator unit in the vapor compression
system.” Final Act. 9. Appellant argues that Buda is silent as to HPAS (the alleged
first heat flux of claim 1) being in any way based on the interior temperature or
the return air temperature of paragraph 24. Appeal Br. 20.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated reply made on pages 19-20 of the
Answer, which we incorporate herein. The Examiner refers to Figure 11 of Buda
(reproduced on page 19 of the Answer). The Examiner explains how the
measurement depicted in Buda’s Figure 11 is a temperature measurement in the air
flow path at a particular position, which is the kind of measurement that is recited in
the claims. Ans. 20. Implicit in the Examiner’s position is that selection of a
location point for temperature measurement in an air flow path as claimed is
suggested by the teachings of Buda and within the level of one of ordinary skill in the
art. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (an
analysis of obviousness “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common
2 On pages 9—10 of the Reply Brief, Appellant, for the first time, addresses the
definition of “heat flux.” We cannot consider this new argument because it is not
accompanied by a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not
have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1476—77 (BPA1 2010) (informative).
6
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require
explication in any reference or expert opinion.”).
Appellant then argues that the Examiner admits that “Buda does not explicitly
teach at a starting time of the first period and (ii) a second RAT of the HVAC
system measured using the RAT sensor at an ending time of the first period.”
Appeal Br. 20; Final Act. 9. Appellant argues that, from this sentence, it is clear that
the Examiner has parsed claim 1 in an arbitrary way and failed to consider claim 1
as a whole. Appellant argues that the phrase “[a]t a starting time of the first period”
pertains to the first return air temperature of claim 1 which is used to determine the
first heat flux of the first period. Specifically, claim 1 recites that “the first heat
flux module determines the first heat flux for the run cycle based on (i) a first
return air temperature (RAT) of the HVAC system measured using a RAT sensor
at a starting time of the first period and (ii) a second RAT of the HVAC system
measured using the RAT sensor at an ending time of the first period.” Appellant
argues that considering the “first return air temperature” separately from the
qualifier “measured using a RAT sensor at a starting time of the first period” renders
this portion of the claim meaningless and the application of Buda improper. Appeal
Br. 20-21.
In response, the Examiner states that he does not believe that the claim was
parsed in an arbitrary way. Ans. 21. The Examiner explains that the extended
claim recitation merely recites tracking the temperature over time by measuring
temperature at the beginning and ending of each sub-cycle. The Examiner
explains how the continuous temperature measurements suggested by Buda (e.g.,
bottom portion of Figure 2 of Buda) includes measurements at the boundaries of
the sub-cycles (e.g., the data points at the time (tx) vertical lines). Ans. 21. We
agree as Appellant has not persuasively convinced us otherwise.
7
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
On page 9 of the Reply Brief, Appellant replies and states that this position of
the Examiner shows that the teachings are not actually in Buda but only suggestions.
This is not persuasive because the rejection is not one of anticipation.
Appellant further replies, in the Rely Brief (page 9), that while the bottom of Figure 2
of Buda includes temperature measurements graphed as a function of time, the
Examiner failed to recognize that Buda is silent as to the use of specific ones of the
temperatures at the specific times claimed to determine the claimed first and
second heat fluxes and/or as to the determination of a third heat flux based on a sum
of the claimed first and second heat fluxes. Again, this reply does not address the
Examiner’s stated position as set forth in the rejection and it therefore unpersuasive.
Appellant then argues that the Examiner also acknowledges that “Buda does
not explicitly teach wherein the second heat flux module determines a second heat
flux for a second period of the run cycle based on a third RAT of the HVAC system
measured using the RAT sensor at a starting time of the second period and a fourth
RAT of the HVAC system measured using the RAT sensor at an ending time of the
second period.” Appeal Br. 21; Final Act. 9-10. Appellant argues that without
support, the Examiner alleges that this portion of claim 1 is obvious and states that,
“since the heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given
surface, per unit time, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to designate the unit time as the interval between the starting and ending time of a
period, such as the second period defined in the claim, with the benefit of
providing appropriate input to the heat flux calculation while calculating the heat
flux while the HVAC is on.” Appeal Br. 21; Final Act. 10. Appellant states that
similar reasoning and lack of support was provided on page 9 of the Final Office
Action with respect to the determination of the first heat flux. Appeal Br. 21.
8
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
In reply, the Examiner states that the definition of heat flux has not been
contested by the Appellant, nor does the Appellant seem to argue the Examiner's
basic contention that an HVAC system is a machine to administer heat
transfer/heat flux in a room/building. Ans. 21. The Examiner states that
Appellant’s argument of lack of support lacks basis because the argued limitations
reflect the basic operation of a HVAC system as explained in the record. Ans. 21.
We agree, and Appellant has not persuaded us otherwise in the record (see also
footnote 1, supra).
Appellant then argues that the Examiner failed to recognize that HPAS and
HPIS of Buda (i.e., the alleged first and second heat fluxes of claim 1) are
themselves intervals/periods of time, as discussed above. Appellant argues that
there is no reason to incorporate another period into the periods of HPAS and/or
HPIS because HPAS and HPIS are themselves periods. Appellant argues that
this illustrates a fundamental flaw in the analogy drawn by the Examiner between
HPAS and HPIS of Buda and the first and second heat fluxes of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 21-22.
In reply, the Examiner states that this argument mischaracterizes the
Examiner’s discussion of HPIS and HPAS. Ans. 22. The Examiner explains that
the HPIS and HPAS sub-cycles are associated with periods and temperature data
which is continuously graphed during those periods. The Examiner states that
sampling of the data during these time periods to make a calculation is a standard
technique, and the sampling interval would define sub-periods during the sub­
cycle periods. Ans. 21. We agree as the Appellant has not persuaded us otherwise
in the record.
Appellant next argues that the first and second periods are not an input to the
determination of the first and second heat flux values, respectively, and refer to
9
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
paragraphs 114 and 117 of the Specification. Appeal Br. 22. As such, Appellant
submits that the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion to provide the “benefit of
providing appropriate input to the heat flux calculation” is misguided, and the
Examiner’s reasoning is flawed. Appellant states that first and second periods are
not “appropriate inputs” in the context of the present application. Appeal Br. 22.
In response, on page 22 of the Answer, the Examiner states that the first
heat flux value is based on data taken during the first period, and the second
heat flux value is based on data taken during the second period. The Examiner
states that therefore, data associated with the relevant periods would be the
appropriate input to that calculation of heat flux values associated with each of
those respective periods. We agree. Also, the Examiner notes that
paragraphll4 of the publication of the Specification states:
“An ON heat flux module 424 determines an ON period heat flux for the
run cycle based on the initial RAT of the run cycle and the ON ending
RAT of the run cycle. For example only, the ON heat flux module 424
may determine the ON period heat flux for the run cycle using one of a
function and a mapping that relates a temperature difference between the
initial and ON ending RATs of the run cycle to heat flux. Heat flux may
refer to a rate of movement of thermal energy.”
The Examiner explains that this has been the perspective and claim interpretation
taken by the Examiner, i.e., the heat flux is merely a mapped relationship to the
temperature change during the ON/(HPAS) sub-cycle and represents the heat
transfer of the HVAC system. The Examiner states that paragraph 117 states the
equivalent for the OFF sub-cycle. Ans. 22. Appellant has not persuaded us of error
in the stated approach made by the Examiner.
Appellant next argues that Buda and Quam, individually and in combination,
do not suggest the feature of claim 1 of a third heat flux module that determines a
third heat flux for the run cycle based on a sum of the first heat flux and the second
10
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
heat flux. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant states that the Examiner relies upon Buda for
teaching this aspect of the claimed subject matter, and cites Equation 1 and
paragraph 78 of Buda in this regard. Final Act. 10. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant
argues that paragraph 78 of Buda and Equation 1 of Buda do not reference HP AS
and/or HPIS (i.e., the alleged first and second heat fluxes of claim 1). Appellant
argues that therefore Buda could not logically teach a third heat flux module that
determines a third heat flux for the run cycle based on a sum of the first heat flux
and the second heat flux, as in claim 1. Id. Appellant argues that Buda is silent
as to any heat flux for a run cycle being determined based on a sum of a first heat
flux and a second heat flux, and that Quam does not remedy the deficiencies of
Buda. Appeal Br. 23.
The Examiner responds and states that the premise of this argument is
incorrect, as Appellant continues the misunderstanding of the HPAS and HPIS
sub-cycles, as presented by the Examiner in the record. Ans. 23. We agree. The
Examiner explains that in Buda, the full cycle (HPC) is comprised of sub-cycles
(HPIS and HPAS, leading to the full cycle being the addition of the sub-cycles
(HPC=HPIS+HPAS). The Examiner states that this corresponds to the heat
flux/heat transfer tracked by temperature during the sub-cycles (first and second
heat flux) naturally summing to the heat flux of the full cycle (claimed as the third
heat flux). Ans. 23.
Appellant next argue that Buda and Quam, individuality and in combination,
do not teach or render obvious:
a power module that determines a total power consumption of
both indoor and outdoor components of the HVAC system during
the run cycle; and/or
Appeal Br. 23.
11
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
Appellant argues that Buda mentions calculating measured input power in
paragraph 23. Appeal Br. 24. Appellant argues that Buda is silent, however, as
to determining a total power consumption of both indoor and outdoor
components of the UVAC system during the run cycle. Appeal Br. 24.
In response, the Examiner states that the rejection explained that these
systems of Buda and Quam utilize indoor and outdoor components and that tracking
the power usage would be understood to be necessary in the calculation of the
efficiency of the system, as taught by Quam. Ans. 23. We are unpersuaded or error
in this approach by the Examiner. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.”); see also Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (an analysis of obviousness “may include recourse to logic,
judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not
necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.”).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Buda is silent as to determining a
total power consumption of both indoor and outdoor components of the
HVAC system during the mn cycle, and merely references power of the
compressor/condenser unit (outdoor equipment) and is silent as to any
determination of a total power consumption of both indoor and outdoor
components. This reply overlooks the Examiner’s position in the record (see
particularly page 10 of the Final Office Action) that both Buda and Quam utilize
both indoor and outdoor components and that tracking power usage of HVAC
system including such components would be within the purview of the skilled
artisan in view of the teachings of the applied art.
Appellant lastly argues that for at least the above reasons, Buda and Quam,
individually and in combination, do not teach or render obvious the features of
claim 1 of:
12
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
a grade determination module that determines a first grade for
the HVAC system based on the third heat flux of the run cycle and
the power consumption during the run cycle.
Appeal Br. 24.
In response, the Examiner disputes that the combination of Buda and Quam does
not teach a grade determination module. Ans. 23. The Examiner refers to pages 10—
11 of the Final Office Action for a detailed explanation of the grading system taught
by Quam, reiterating that such would have been obvious to use with the HVAC system taught
by Buda. Id. The Examiner reiterates that the combination of Buda and Quam presents
an obvious combination of Buda’s mostly conventional HVAC system measuring heat
transfer/heat flux overtime via temperature sensors (including RAT), with the system of
Quam that computes the HVAC system efficiency and assigns a grade to the
result. The Examiner states that Appellant’s arguments appear to be based on
overly focusing on reading the labels in the reference, which are not the same as
the labels used in the present application (but which describe comparable
concepts), so the arguments focus on form over substance. Ans. 23—24. We
agree. In response, the Examiner disputes that the combination of Buda and Quam does
not teach a grade determination module. Ans. 23.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1 as we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s position in the record.
Rejection 2
Rejection 2 is not separately argued by Appellant. Appeal Br. 25. We
therefore affirm Rejection 2 for the same reasons that we affirm Rejection 1.
13
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
Rejection 3
The Examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on pages 6—8 of the Final
Office Action, which we incorporate herein. In response to the Examiner’s stated
position, Appellant argues that claims 1 and 11 are not directed to an abstract idea
and include significantly more than an abstract idea for the reasons presented on
pages 8—18 of the Appeal Brief. Therein, Appellants refer to certain case law in
support of their stated position in the record.
Appellant argues that the present claims are similar to claims addressed by
certain case law (case law finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract
idea). Appeal Br. 8—12. Appellant argues that the present claims involve
determining different metrics (heat fluxes) and parameters (RAT) for monitoring
and grading that were not previously used, and that the resulting displayable report,
including a grade determined based on these different metrics and parameters,
provides different and valuable information that was not previously available
regarding the performance of an HVAC system. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also
submits that the present claims involve hardware (see | 148) making the
determinations, determining the grade, and generating the displayable report. Id.
Appellant concludes that the claimed subject matter addresses shortcomings
and inabilities of conventional grading and monitoring systems, and are not
directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner’s response to Appellant’s aforementioned line of argument
begins on page 6 of the Answer. As pointed out by the Examiner, the controlling
precedent regarding an abstract idea excluded by judicial exception is found in Alice
Corp. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Ans. 7. In this case, the Supreme
Court of the United States reaffirmed the long-held principle that 35 U.S.C. § 101
contains an ‘“important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
14
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
abstract ideas are not patentable.’” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc, for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). The Court provided a two-step analytical framework
for determining whether a claim is patent eligible. Id. at 2355. The first
step requires determining whether the claim is directed to one of these exceptions,
such as an abstract idea. Id. If so, the second step requires determining “‘[w]hat else
is there in the claims before us?”’ Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012). That step involves searching
for an inventive concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements in the claim
that is ‘“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
Also, under § 101, a patent claim is ineligible if “(1) it is ‘directed to’ a patent-
ineligible concept,” such as an “abstract idea,” and “(2), if so, the particular
elements of the claim, considered ‘both individually and “as an ordered
combination,”’ do not add enough to “‘transform the nature of the claim” into a
patent-eligible application.’” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 7, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)).
The Examiner discusses Electric Power Group, LLC on page 7 of the Answer
as treating collecting information, including when limited to particular content
(which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of
abstract ideas. The Examiner states that, similarly, in the instant case, the claims
are focused on a combination of such abstract-idea processes. Ans. 8. The
Examiner states that the advancement the present claims purport to make is a
process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then
displaying the results, and not any particular inventive technology for performing
15
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
those functions. The Examiner concludes that the claims are therefore directed to
an abstract idea. Ans. 8.
The Examiner explains that the present claims gather temperature (RAT) data
over time, which is comparable to the information gathering identified by Electric
Power Group, LLC. Ans. 8. The Examiner states that the mathematical processing
of the temperature differentials determines heat flux (a mathematical answer),
which is then divided by total power input (another information input). This
mathematical process of division produces an efficiency result (a mathematical
result). The Examiner explains that this mathematical answer (the efficiency) is
then mathematically assigned a grade. Id. The Examiner states that these steps are
the “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the
abstract-idea category” as identified by Electric Power Group, LLC. The Examiner
states that the displayable report is merely the reporting of the mathematical result
(the grade), which is comparable to the display of information identified by the
Electric Power Group, LLC court and dismissed as “merely presenting the results
of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information.” Ans. 8.
In reply, beginning on page 2 of the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that the
Examiner has not identified what the Examiner believes to be the “abstract idea.”
We are unpersuaded by such argument because the Examiner’s position identifies
how the claims pertain to an abstract idea, as discussed, supra. We thus agree with
the Examiner’s position in the record.
Having determined that the inventive concept is directed to an abstract idea,
we look to see if claim 1 recites any additional element or combination of elements
sufficient to ensure that any patent issuing with the claim amounts to “significantly
more” than the abstract idea.
16
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
In this regard, Appellant presents argument on pages 12—18 of the Appeal
Brief, which we do not repeat herein. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates that the
present claims are distinguishable from the claims addressed in Electric Power
Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 2—3.
Appellant submits that the present claims are more concrete and detailed than the
claims addressed in Electric Power Group, LLC. Reply Br. 3^4. Appellant argues
that the present claims involve new sources of information (e.g., the RAT sensor)
that were not previously used in grading or monitoring, new types of information
(e.g., RATs, heat fluxes, total power consumption) that were not previously used in
grading or monitoring, and new techniques for analyzing that information (e.g.,
determining heat fluxes based on RAT, determining grade based on heat fluxes and
total power consumption). Reply Br. 4—5.
Appellants also argue that claim 1 recites specific parameters associated
with an HVAC system, such as heat fluxes, use of RATs (return air temperatures)
taken at specific times, power consumption of both indoor and outdoor
components, etc. Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that the claimed parameters are
much more concrete (and non-abstract) than the claim terms in Electric Power
Group, LLC. Id. Appellant also argues that the present claims involve new sources
of information (e.g., the RAT sensor) that were not previously used in grading
or monitoring, new types of information (e.g., RATs, heat fluxes, total power
consumption) that were not previously used in grading or monitoring, and new
techniques for analyzing that information (e.g., determining heat fluxes based on
RAT, determining grade based on heat fluxes and total power consumption).
Appellant submits that the present claims are therefore distinguishable from
non-specific claims in Electric Power Group, LLC. Reply Br. 4—5. Appellant refers
to Figure 11 of Buda in this regard. Reply Br. 5—6.
17
Appeal 2017-011856
Application 14/705,289
However, for the reasons presented by the Examiner in the record, particularly
on pages 7—8 of the Answer (discussed, supra), we are unpersuaded by such
argument. Also, Appellant’s argument that the claims involve new sources of
information not previously used in grading is found unpersuasive in view of the
prima facie case of obviousness established by the Examiner in the record. We thus
agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 10—11) that the claims fail to include
any such element or combination of elements, amounting to “significantly more”
than the abstract idea. As the Examiner states, “[t]he application of this abstract
idea [information collecting and analysis] to the technological area of an HVAC
system does not add significantly more beyond the abstract idea itself.” Ans. 10.
We thus agree with the Examiner’s position, and are unpersuaded of error in it,
that Appellant’s claimed subject matter is directed to the simple concept involving a
mathematical algorithm utilized to produce a mathematical result (a heat flux, an
efficiency based upon the heat flux and the value of the power input, and the
assignment of a grade (being another mathematical step (e.g., 90%=A)). Ans. 9.
A patent on such a concept would preempt its use in all fields and would effectively
grant a monopoly over the abstract idea of calculating an efficiency and assignment
of displaying a grade. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 3.
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
18