Ex Parte BootDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201613168249 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/168,249 13077 7590 Sutherland GE Suite 2300 999 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 06/24/2011 John Christopher Boot 05/16/2016 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. 19441-1037 9690 EXAMINER QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2016 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): patent. docket@sutherland.com pair_sutherland@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN CHRISTOPHER BOOT Appeal2014-008461 Application 13/168,249 Technology Center 2800 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. "1"1 ,1 "1 "1 ,..,,,-TT#'I~ 1\1,..,,Al/'-r'" ,"1 T"""i • ., Appeuant' appeals unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is General Electric Company. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-008461 Application 13/168,249 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's present application relates to analyzing electricity usage data grouped by types of electrical devices. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows: 1. A method for analyzing electrical usage data, the method compnsmg: receiving data associated with time periods that types of electrical devices are used at a metered location and storing the data in a database; identifying at least one electrical device from the types of electrical devices in the database based on analyzing load consumption characteristics of the at least one electrical device; associating demographic data with the metered location and storing the associated demographic data in the database; defining usage behaviors from the database associated ,~1ith the metered location; processing the data associated with the time periods that the types of electrical devices are used at the metered location and the usage behaviors associated with the metered location to define time periods that types of electrical devices are used; and identifying an alternative time period that the at least one electrical device of the types of electrical devices may be used. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Le Roux (US 2011/0264291 Al; Oct. 27, 2011) and Shimada (US 2010/0070217 Al; Mar. 18, 2010). See Final Act. 2-15. 2 Appeal2014-008461 Application 13/168,249 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Le Roux and Shimada teaches or suggests "identifying an alternative time period that the at least one electrical device of the types of electrical devices may be used." See App. Br. 6-8, Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellant argues Le Roux does not teach or suggest "identifying an alternative time" and, if it did, an ordinarily skilled artisan \"1ould not have been motivated to "look to Shimada to teach 'processing the data associated with the time periods ... ,"as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds that Le Roux does not disclose "identifying an alternative time period," but Le Roux teaches providing a notification of times when energy costs are likely to rise so that a consumer can reduce their energy consumption. Final Act. 6 (citing Le Roux ,-i 41 ). The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to identify to the consumer not only the time period when power is more expensive, but also an alternative time period when power would be less expensive. Final Act. 6. 3 Appeal2014-008461 Application 13/168,249 Appellant replies that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner did not identify a reference that teaches or suggests "identifying an alternative time period." Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues the Examiner's statements only indicate that if there were a reference that taught identifying an alternative time period, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine that reference with Le Roux and Shimada. Id. We disagree. Appellant misstates the requirements for establishing a primafacie case of obviousness. To overcome a rejection based on obviousness, it is not enough for an Appellant to show that references have differences. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The obviousness analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, as the analysis can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art vvould employ. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). This follows, in part, from the fact that the person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Id. at 418. Accordingly, inventions that the law deems obvious are those modest, routine, every day, incremental improvements of an existing product or process that do not involve sufficient inventiveness to merit patent protection. See Ritchie v. Vast Resources, Inc., 563 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to identify not only a time period when energy costs are elevated, but also an alternative time period when costs are not elevated. Ans. 4. Further, by identifying a time period when energy 4 Appeal2014-008461 Application 13/168,249 costs are high, Le Roux's notification is simultaneously indicating that all other times have a lower energy cost. Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Le Roux and Shimada. See App. Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner's articulated rationale for combining the references "is difficult to understand in view of the fact that individual devices may already be identified in Le Roux." App. Br. 8. Appellant argues the Examiner indicated that Le Roux teaches identifying devices, thus rendering the combination unnecessary. Id. (citing Final Act. 3). We disagree. The Examiner does not find that Le Roux teaches identifying at least one electrical device and the cited portion of Le Roux only teaches signals indicating the energy consumption of various devices. See Final Act. 3 (citing Le Roux ,-i 44). In fact, the Examiner explicitly finds that Le Roux does not teach the "identifying" limitation. Final ,,L\ .. ct. 3. Further, the Examiner finds Shimada teaches the "identifying" limitation, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Le Roux and Shimada to "allow for automatic identification of the electrical devices, which would be convenient from a user's perspective." Final Act. 4 (citing Le Roux ,-i 45). Appellant argues that the Examiner relies on Shimada to teach the "processing the data associated with the time periods ... " limitation. See App. Br. 7. However, the Examiner does not rely on Shimada for teaching this limitation, only the "identifying" limitation. Ans. 5-6, Final Act. 3. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding an ordinarily skilled artisan 5 Appeal2014-008461 Application 13/168,249 would have been motivated to combine Le Roux and Shimada for the articulated reasons. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Le Roux and Shimada. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues the patentability of claim 12 based on the same reasons presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 9. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 12. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20, which were not argued separately from their respective independent claims. See id. DECISION \Ve affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation