Ex Parte Casilli

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13549060 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
13/549,060 07/13/2012 Chris Casilli 2011P24663US 1658
28524 7590 02/02/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
KARIM, ZIAUL
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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 CHRIS CASILLI
Appeal 2016-005458
Application 13/549,060
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005458
Application 13/549,060
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “receiving point data
from [a] building automation system” and “identifying a plurality of
components of the building automation system based on the point data . . .
and generating a model of the building automation system based on the point
data” (Abstract).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of controlling a building automation system, the
building automation system including a plurality of components
and each of the plurality of components having point data
associated therewith, the method comprising:
establishing communications between a mobile
computing device and a building automation network of the
building automation system; and
generating a model of the building automation system
based on point data queried in real-time from at least one
component of the building automation system via the building
automation network;
the point data identifying the plurality of components of
the building automation system.
2
Appeal 2016-005458
Application 13/549,060
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 8, 9, 12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nixon et al. (US 2007/0179645 Al; Aug. 2, 2007)
in view of Fairless (US 2006/0065750 Al; Mar. 30, 2006). Final Act. 2.
Claims 2—7, 10, 11, and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nixon in view of Fairless, and further
in view of Singhal et al. (US 2008/0231437 Al; Sept. 25, 2008). Final Act.
7.
Claims 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singhal in view of Fairless. Final Act. 12.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Nixon and Fairless discloses or suggests:
1. “generating a model of the building automation system based on point
data queried in real-time from at least one component of the building
automation system via the building automation network” and “the
point data identifying the plurality of components of the building
automation system,” as recited in claim 1;
2. “the mobile computing device configured to receive point data
queried from a component of the building automation system in real
time, identify the plurality of components based on the received point
data, and generate a model of the building automation system based
on the received point data,” as recited in claim 9; and
3
Appeal 2016-005458
Application 13/549,060
3. “generating a model of the building automation system in the mobile
computing device based at least in part on received point data queried
in real time from a component of the building automation system,” as
recited in claim 17.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Nixon and Fairless discloses or suggests “generating a model of the building
automation system based on point data queried in real-time from at least one
component of the building automation system via the building automation
network” and “the point data identifying the plurality of components of the
building automation system,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7). Appellant
contends “Nixon merely teaches the use of a tool 120 utilizing stencil items
420 for configuring the process control network, and to ensure that the
process control network corresponds to a desired standard protocol” (App.
Br. 8, citing Nixon 132). Appellant additionally contends that “nothing in
Fairless discloses generating a model of a building automation system,
much less generating one based on point data queried in real-time” (App. Br.
10).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that “Fairless teaches generating a model of the building
automation system based on point data queried in real-time from at least one
component of the building automation system via the building automation
network” because “paragraph 0035-006 [sic] and abstract describe collecting
‘real-time data’ and ‘generating model’ based on real-time data of the
building automation system via the building automation network” (Final
4
Appeal 2016-005458
Application 13/549,060
Act. 4). The cited portion of Fairless describes a system that is “configured
to acquire operational data and system performance information, for
example, through existing building management systems or specific system
sensors” (Fairless 135) and the data is applied to “a web-based reporting
system and system equipment models to [] objectively measure real-time
system efficiencies” (Fairless H 35—36). Appellant fails to point to any
definition of a “model of the building automation system” in the
Specification that would rebut the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation that
a “model of the building automation system” encompasses Fairless’s
“system equipment models to objectively measure real-time system
efficiencies.”1
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claim 9 not separately argued (see App. Br. 10,
Reply Br. 7), as well as dependent claims 2—8 and 10-16 not separately
argued (see App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 7).
Appellant repeats similar arguments with respect to independent
claims 1 and 9 for independent claim 17 (see App. Br. 11—12, Reply Br. 7).
Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejections for these claims for
the same reasons as stated above.
1 We additionally note that Fairless also teaches or suggests determining
“setpoints at which certain equipment of the HVAC system should be
operated at a future time” (Abstract), in which the determination of the
setpoints would require a model of the building automation system.
5
Appeal 2016-005458
Application 13/549,060
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Nixon and
Fairless discloses or suggests:
1. “generating a model of the building automation system based on point
data queried in real-time from at least one component of the building
automation system via the building automation network” and “the
point data identifying the plurality of components of the building
automation system,” as recited in claim 1;
2. “the mobile computing device configured to receive point data
queried from a component of the building automation system in real
time, identify the plurality of components based on the received point
data, and generate a model of the building automation system based
on the received point data,” as recited in claim 9; and
3. “generating a model of the building automation system in the mobile
computing device based at least in part on received point data queried
in real time from a component of the building automation system,” as
recited in claim 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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
6