Ex Parte Benco et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2018

12642045 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/642,045 12/18/2009
47394 7590 05/14/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./ALCATEL-LUCENT
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David S. Benco
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
805546 1779
EXAMINER
BORISSOV, IGOR N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVIDS. BENCO and PATRICICA S. BECK
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel-Lucent USA, Incorporated as the real-party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to power management systems and
methods. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method of controlling power consumption,
compnsmg:
defining a boundary region surrounding a power-consuming
structure, said boundary region based on geolocations defined
by geographical location coordinates;
storing a representation of said boundary region, based on
said geolocations defined by said geographical location
coordinates, surrounding said power-consuming structure;
obtaining geolocations defined by geographical location
coordinates for one or more mobile terminals over a
telecommunications network;
determining, by a processor, whether or not said one or
more mobile terminals are located inside or outside of said
boundary region based on said geolocations;
changing, by the processor, a power mode of said power-
consuming structure to:
a first power mode when all of said one or more mobile
terminals are located outside of said boundary region, or,
a second power mode for power consumption higher
than said first mode when at least one of said one or more
mobile terminals is located inside said boundary region.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Jacob
Santanche
Trundle
Liang
us 5,781,108
US 2008/0104530 Al
US 2010/0289643 Al
US 8,543,127 B2
2
July 14, 1998
May 1, 2008
Nov. 18, 2010
Sept. 24, 2013
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2--4, and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Trundle2 and Santanche.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Trundle, Santanche, and Jacob.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Trundle, Santanche, and Liang.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2-4, and 6-21
over Trundle and Santanche
Claims 1, 15, and 20
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 15, and 20 as a group. Appeal
Br. 6-10. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Trundle discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for defining and storing a boundary region based on
geographic coordinates. Final Action 2---6. The Examiner relies on
Santanche as disclosing this feature. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify Trundle with the teaching of Santanche. Id.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this as it merely entails a combination of old elements, with each
element merely performing the same function as it did separately. Id. The
Examiner considers the result produced by the combination to be
predictable. Id.
2 Trundle claims priority to Provisional Application No. 61/179,224, filed
May 18, 2009 (hereinafter "Trundle Provisional App.").
3
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that
Santanche fails to disclose a boundary region - "surrounding a power-
consuming structure." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants concede that Santanche
discloses monitoring sensors within a region of interest designated by a user.
Id. Notwithstanding, Appellants argue that none of the disclosed regions of
interest are disclosed as explicitly surrounding a power-consuming structure.
Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that the ''power-consuming
structure" of the rejection is disclosed in Trundle; namely, a home. Ans. 4.
The Examiner explains further that Trundle teaches defining a threshold
distance around the home. Id. According to the Examiner, Trundle tracks
the physical location of a user by GPS and alters power consumption in the
house based on the user crossing the threshold distance. Id. at 4--5 (quoting
Trundle's Provisional Application, p. 8). 3 The Examiner explains that
Santanche is applied to show defining a boundary region surrounding a
region of interest. Id. at 5.
In reply, Appellants reiterate their previous argument that Santanche
fails to define a boundary region "surrounding a power-consuming
structure." Reply Br. 2. Appellants also criticize the Examiner for referring
to Trundle' s threshold distance as a "region of interest" when the term
"region of interest" per se, does not appear in Trundle. Id. at 2-3.
Contrary to Appellants' latter argument, the Examiner commits no
error in analogizing Trundle' s threshold distance as a "region of interest."
3 "[T]he native monitoring application 142, 152 tracks the mobile device's
physical location using GPS or other location protocols built into device and
uses location tracking to control thermostat, lighting, and other energy-
consuming appliances." Ans. 5.
4
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a reference need not
satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test). Trundle discloses that:
When the user is detected [as] moving toward the home, the
native monitoring application 142, 152 may tum on lights in the
home, adjust the thermostat to a comfortable setting, and tum
on useful appliances when the user is less than a threshold
distance from the home.
Trundle Provisional App. p. 8 (emphasis added). A person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand a "threshold distance" as a radius that defines a
circular region (or "region of interest") around the home.
With respect to Appellants' argument that Santanche' s "region of
interest" does not "surround a power consuming structure," we find this
argument unpersuasive. Santanche is directed to a "senseweb" in which
conditions such as temperature are monitored within a region of interest.
Santanche i-fi-13-5. Santanche further discloses that:
The region of interest can be designated by the user in many
different ways. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3, the user
can designate a polygonal region 300 by specifying the
boundaries of the polygonal region on a given map 302, such as
by drawing the region 300 using graphical user interface tools.
The polygonal region 300 can be described using any technique
known in the art, including tracing the bounds of the region
usmg a cursor.
Santanche i137. Thus, Santanche discloses a user defined region of interest.
We agree with the Examiner that Trundle discloses a geographic region
surrounding a power consuming structure and, thus, the combination of
Trundle and Santanche discloses "defining a boundary region surrounding a
power-consuming structure" as claimed. We view Appellants' argument as
an attack on the references individually. 4 However, non-obviousness cannot
4 Appellants' naked denial of this is not persuasive. See Reply Br. 3--4.
5
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the
Examiner's legal conclusion ofunpatentability is well-founded. We sustain
the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1, 15, and 20.
Claims 2, 4, 6-14, 17-19 and 21
Claims 2, 4, 6-14, 16-19 and 21 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claims 1, 15, or 20. Claims App. Appellants do not argue forthe separate
patentability of these claims apart from arguments presented with respect to
claims 1, 15, and 20, which we have previously considered. We sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, 6-14, 17-19 and 21 as unpatentable
over Trundle and Santanche. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (failure to
separately argue claims).
Claims 3 and 16
Appellants argue claims 3 and 16 together. Appeal Br. 10-11. We
select claim 3 as representative. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds the
following limitations, with paragraph indentation added:
wherein defining said boundary region includes defining an
exit boundary region and defining an entry boundary region,
and,
wherein said power mode of said power-consuming
structure is changed to said second power mode when each of
said one or more mobile terminals has moved from inside of
said exit boundary region to outside of said exit boundary
region, and, said power-consuming structure is changed to said
6
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
first power mode when at least one of said one or more mobile
terminals has moved from outside of said entry boundary region
to inside of said entry boundary region.
Claims App. The Examiner acknowledges that Trundle does not explicitly
define exit and entry boundary regions. Final Action 7. However, the
Examiner considers it to be a matter of obvious design choice to establish a
threshold of any desired configuration. Id. According to the Examiner, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to address family
members' preferences. Id.
Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding that selecting entry and
exit regions is merely a matter of obvious design choice. Appeal Br. 10-11.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that entry and exit boundary
regions are already suggested in Trundle. Ans. 8.
If there is a border disposed at a threshold distance from the
home which, when being crossed by a vehicle at a certain area,
triggers switching on home appliances, than this area is an entry
region. Same reasoning applied to the exit region.
Id. In reply, Appellants take the position that each of Trundle's distance
thresholds 1, 2, and 3 of Figure 12 are "entry" regions. Reply Br. 4.
There is no teaching or suggestion that any of Trundle's
Distance Thresholds 1, 2, or 3 would be exit boundary regions ..
. . there is only a description of a user 1220 (in an automobile)
arriving at property 1210. There is no description of what
occurs when Trundle's user 1220 (in an automobile) leaves its
property 1210.
Id. at 4--5.
Trundle describes a native monitoring application that tracks a mobile
device's physical location using GPS or other location protocols. Trundle
Provisional App. 8. The monitoring system automatically detects when a
user is going toward or away from a home and sets the thermostat, lights,
7
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
and appliances accordingly. Id. Thus, when the user is moving away from
the home, the monitoring system may tum off the lights. Id. Similarly,
when the user is detected is moving toward the home, the system may tum
on lights, adjust the thermostat, and tum on appliances. Id. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that these actions take place in
relation to crossing a "threshold distance" from the home. Id.
Furthermore, Trundle provides a table of rules in Figure 4 with an
accompanying description in the specification. Trundle i-fi-193-94, Fig. 4.
Rules 418--420 govern actions that take place when a user is inside or
outside of specified threshold distances from the home. Id. i-fi-f l 00-103. For
example:
[R Jule 420 defines that, when presence is not detected within
the first area, presence is not detected within the second area,
and a user is detected as being more than five miles from the
property, the system 200 automatically, without human
intervention, controls the thermostat to a conserve mode.
Id. i-f 103. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when
a user changes his or her geographical location from that specified in
Rule 419 to that specified in Rule 420, the user has crossed an "exit"
boundary within the meaning of claim 3. Similarly, when a user changes
location from that of Rule 420 to Rule 418, the user has crossed an "entry"
boundary within the meaning of claim 3. The foregoing disclosures
effectively refute Appellants' argument that Trundle fails to describe what
occurs when a user exits the home. Reply Br. 4--5.
Thus, the Examiner's findings of fact regarding the exit and entry
boundary limitations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 16.
8
Appeal2017-006273
Application 12/642,045
Unpatentability of Claims 4 and 5
over Combinations based on Trundle and Santanche
Claims 4 and 5 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims
App. Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of claims 4 and 5
apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 1, which we have
previously considered. Appeal Br. 12. We sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 4 and 5. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 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
9