Ex Parte CS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13231236 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
13/231,236 09/13/2011 Adishesha CS H0028974-HON10513P00190US 2994
93730 7590 03/02/2018
HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
ksanderson@woodphillips.com
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docketing @ woodphillips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADISHESHA CS and ARUN VI JAYAKUMARI MAHASENAN
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and,
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
monitoring an electrical power distribution system. See generally
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for monitoring electrical power
distribution lines in a power grid, wherein each electrical
power distribution line has a select phase angle,
comprising:
a plurality of mesh networks each monitoring
electrical power distribution lines at a select location of
the power grid, each mesh network comprising a plurality
of wireless sensors adapted for wireless communications
therebetween, each wireless sensor measuring attributes
of line voltage for an associated electrical power
distribution line at the select location, including phase of
the associated electrical power distribution line at the
select location, a master sensor for collecting data from
the other sensors in the mesh network and determining
voltage and phase attribute data of the electrical power
distribution lines at the select location, the phase attribute
data representing differences between phase angles of the
power distribution lines at the select location, the master
sensor comprising a gateway device for communication
outside of the mesh network; and
a monitor device for communication with the
master sensors for receiving voltage and phase attribute
data from the master sensors for monitoring operation of
the electrical power distribution line power grid.
References and Rejections
Keselman US 2009/0125255 A1 May 14, 2009
US 2012/0054527 A1 Mar. 1, 2012
US 2012/0223840 A1 Sept. 6, 2012
Pfeifer
Guymon
2
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
Afzal US 2013/0054183 A1 Feb. 28, 2013
Sood et al., Developing a Communication Infrastructure for the
Smart Grid, IEEE Electrical Power & Energy Conference 1-7 (2009)
(“Sood”).
Choi et al., Autonomous State Estimation for the Smart Grid-
Laboratory Implementation, IEEE 1-8 (2010) (“Choi”).
Claims 1—4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the collective teachings
of Afzal, Guymon, Pfeifer, and Keselman.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the collective teachings of Afzal, Guymon,
Pfeifer, Keselman, and Choi.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the collective teachings of Afzal, Guymon,
Pfeifer, Keselman, and Sood.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from
which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are
consistent with our analysis below.1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
Appellants acknowledge Afzal claims priority to provisional
applications 61/529,554 and 61/529,509 (“Afzal Provisional
Applications”), which were filed before September 13, 2011 (the
filing date of this invention) and constitute prior art. See Appeal Br.
3—4. However, Appellants contend Afzal’s paragraph 90 is not
supported by the Afzal Provisional Applications, and cannot teach
“the phase attribute data representing differences between phase
angles of the power distribution lines at the select location.” See
Appeal Br. 3-7; Reply Br. 2-3.2 Appellants argue although Guymon
teaches “a gateway device,” it does not teach a mesh network. See
Appeal Br. 7-8. However, Appellants acknowledge “conceptually
similar” Pfeifer teaches a mesh network. See Appeal Br. 8.
Nevertheless, Appellants generally contend the cited references do not
teach limitations of claim 1, especially since none of the references
individually teaches such limitations. See Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br
3—4.
2 Afzal was filed on July 11, 2012—after September 13, 2011 (the
filing date of this invention). As discussed above, it is undisputed that
the Afzal Provisional Applications are prior art with respect to the
rejected claims. The Examiner finds the Afzal Provisional
Applications “include^ all relevant subject matter that is disclosed in
[Afzal] that is used to reject this claim [1] and the claims that follow.”
Final Act. 4. “By making this factual finding, the Examiner then
shifted the burden to Appellants to show why such a factual finding
was erroneous.” Ex parte Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d 1606, 1613 (BPAI
2008) (precedential). Appellants merely assert Afzal is not prior art
with respect to claim 1, but do not provide analysis (except for Afzal’s
paragraph 90, which we discuss above) to show the Examiner’s
factual finding is incorrect. See Appeal Br. 3—4; Reply Br 1-2.
Therefore, Appellants have not shown Examiner error. See
Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d at 1613.
4
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. Because the
Examiner relies on the combination of Afzal, Guymon, Pfeifer, and
Keselman to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot
establish nonobviousness by attacking a reference individually. See In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner
finds—and Appellants do not persuasively dispute—Keselman
teaches “the phase attribute data representing differences between
phase angles of the power distribution lines at the select location.”
Final Act. 4. Therefore, Afzal does not need to teach that limitation
separately. Appellants’ argument that Afzal’s paragraph 90 does not
constitute prior art (Appeal Br. 3-7) is unpersuasive, because the
Examiner does not rely on that paragraph for teaching the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 4.
Similarly, because the Examiner cites the combination of Afzal,
Guymon, Pfeifer, and Keselman to teach the disputed claim
limitations (Ans. 10-13), Appellants’ following argument against
Keselman individually is unpersuasive:
Keselman does not suggest wireless sensors for each power line
and adapted for wireless communication therebetween and
using a master sensor for determining phase attribute data
representing the difference between phase angles of power
distribution lines at a select location.
Appeal Br. 9.
Further, many of Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive
because they are merely general assertions, and Appellants do not
provide adequate analysis and evidential support for such assertions.
5
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
See Appeal Br. 6-10. In particular, Appellants’ general assertion
below is unpersuasive:
There is no possible combination of these references
which would result in a system in which a mesh network
includes a master sensor and a plurality of wireless
sensors at a select location of a power grid. Such a mesh
network is not defined in any of the references or
suggested in any of the references. More particularly,
Pfeifer alone or in combination with the other references
does not suggest using a mesh network to determine
phase attribute data representing differences between
phase angles of power distribution lines at a select
location.
There is no possible combination of the cited
references which results in a system in which a mesh
network includes a master sensor and a plurality of
wireless sensors at a select location of the power grid.
Such a mesh network is not defined in any of the
references or suggested in any of the references. More
particularly, none of the references suggests a wireless
mesh network determining phase attribute data
representing differences between phase angles of power
distribution lines at a select location.
Appeal Br. 8-10; see also Reply Br. 4, 5-6. Further, Appellants’
assertion that “[s]uch a mesh network is not defined in any of the
references or suggested in any of the references” (Appeal Br. 8, 9) and
“none of the references suggests a wireless mesh network determining
phase attribute data representing differences between phase angles of
power distribution lines at a select location” (Appeal Br. 9) incorrectly
attacks the references individually, when the Examiner cites Afzal,
6
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
Guymon, Pfeifer, and Keselman collectively to teach the disputed
limitations.3
Finally, Appellants’ following argument is unpersuasive
because as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 13), Appellants do not
provide sufficient objective evidence to support their assertion:
As noted above, the phase angle of a particular line
is a time dependent signal. If the lines being measured
are electrically connected to the phase angle detecting
apparatus, then the measurement is straight forward.
However, the measurement is not straight forward in a
wireless system.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465,1470 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“attorney argument [is] not the kind of
factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness”).
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants belatedly
advance attorney arguments to support their assertion that “the
measurement is not straight forward in a wireless system.” See Reply
Br. 3—4. Further, the unsupported attorney arguments are
unpersuasive of error. See Geisler, 116 F.3d atl470; see also
Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977) (“Argument of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.”). For
example, Appellants acknowledge in a wired system, “multiple inputs
could be provided to a single sensor.” Reply Br. 5. Without
3 Appellants also question “how would a mesh be formed.” Appeal
Br. 8. The Examiner responds the Final Office Action already
provides detailed explanations (Ans. 12), and Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s response.
7
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
providing objective evidence, Appellants assert a wireless system
cannot allow that feature. See Reply Br. 5. In any event, Appellants’
argument is not directed to the Examiner’s specific findings:
Appellants have not shown the Examiner’s proposed combination
modified from a wired system—cannot have multiple inputs provided
to a single sensor. Appellants have not shown Examiner error because
the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Appellants do not present
adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art”
or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claim 11 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of corresponding
dependent claims 2, 3, 6-10, 12, 13, and 16-20, as Appellants do not
advance separate substantive arguments regarding those claims.
Dependent Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15
Each of dependent claims 4 and 14 recites “wherein the master
sensor synchronizes timing of the wireless sensors in each mesh
8
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
network.” Claims 5 and 15 depend from claims 4 and 14,
respectively.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 5, 14, and 15, Appellants argue
Afzal’s paragraph 40 is not supported by the Afzal Provisional
Applications and cannot teach “such synchronization.” Appeal Br.
10-11. Appellants further argue:
To the extent the action relies on Pfeifer, it is simply for
the mention of synchronizing. There is no disclosure or
suggestion that a master sensor, being one of the wireless
sensors, synchronizes timing of the wireless sensors in each
mesh network.
Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner responds that page 2 of Afzal’s 61/259,509
provisional application teaches or suggests synchronizing sensors.
See Ans. 13. Alternatively, the Examiner finds:
Pfeifer discloses the primary WBD 310 is responsible for
initiating, synchronizing, scheduling, and managing data
communication in the local network, Para [0063], where the
local network consists of the RPDU sensors. The primary
WBD is considered the master sensor and is in charge of
synchronizing data in the network, which heavily implies the
sensors are synchronized by the primary WBD.
Ans. 13.
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s above findings.
Therefore, Appellants fail to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter
TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”).
9
Appeal 2016-002013
Application 13/231,23 6
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4, 5, 14, and 15,
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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
10