Ex Parte CasilliDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201713549060 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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. 13/549,060 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation