Ex Parte Fallon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 201410318996 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014) 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. 10/318,996 12/13/2002 Ray Fallon 10040-515F01US / APC-0276 8539 101510 7590 03/10/2014 HUNTER CLARK PLLC 900 Cummings Center Suite 213-T Beverly, MA 01915 EXAMINER GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RAY FALLON, NOEL FEGAN, JACQUELINE HAYES, EDDIE GROGAN, and DAVID MATHIESON ____________________ Appeal 2011-011143 Application 10/318,996 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011143 Application 10/318,996 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-17. Claim 14 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with disputed the limitation emphasized, reads as follows: 1. A monitoring system for monitoring operation of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS), wherein the UPS is connected to and provides status information to the monitoring system, the monitoring system comprising: receiving means for receiving information relating to occurrences of power anomalies at the UPS; analyzing means, coupled to the receiving means, for analyzing the received information to determine a total quantity of occurrences of each power anomaly type of a plurality of power anomaly types and for providing indications of each total quantity; and display means, coupled to the analyzing menus, for using the indications from the analyzing means to display a graphical user interface showing labels identifying each of the power anomaly types, the labels being understandable to a novice UPS user, for showing the corresponding total quantity of occurrences for each of the identified power anomaly types, and for showing a time that a battery of the UPS was utilized to provide power during the corresponding total quantity of occurrences for each of the identified power anomaly types. The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-13 and 15-17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Riccardo Facchetti, Monitoring Your UPS Appeal 2011-011143 Application 10/318,996 3 with apcupsd, LINUX JOURNAL, Vol. 2000, Issue 80es, Article No. 4, pp. 1-7 (November 2000) (hereinafter, “Facchetti”) and Paul (US 6,112,136; Aug. 29, 2000). Ans. 3-12. Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend (Br. 7-11) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Facchetti and Paul for numerous reasons, including generally that the combination of references fails to teach or suggest the display means for displaying information relating the monitoring of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) including total quantity of power anomaly occurrences for each power anomaly type and the time battery of the UPS was provided for the corresponding occurrences, as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in the remaining independent claims 7 and 10 and each of the dependent claims 2- 6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-17. Reply Brief No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at page 13 of the Answer, including the citations to Paul (see Ans. 13 (citing Paul, col. 1, ll. 1-14; col. 2, ll. 44-50; col. 5, ll. 19-31; col. 7, ll. 53-57; col. 10, ll. 30- 33)) describing Paul’s software management system and trend analysis circuitry which analyzes and predicts failures based on trends in a UPS environment. Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 7-11), the following principal issue is presented on appeal: Appeal 2011-011143 Application 10/318,996 4 Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-17 as being obvious over the base combination of Facchetti and Paul because (i) Facchetti and Paul combined fails to teach or suggest the recited display and method for displaying, and/or (ii) Paul fails to teach or suggest the display means for displaying information relating the monitoring of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) including total quantity of power anomaly occurrences for each power anomaly type and the time battery of the UPS was provided for the corresponding occurrences, as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in each of the remaining independent claims 7 and 10? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-12), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 12-13) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. “During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appeal 2011-011143 Application 10/318,996 5 In this light, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4-5, 13) that Paul teaches or suggests a display means as set forth in claim 1. In other words, a batch of single transfer descriptors teaches or at least suggests the single transfer descriptor recited in claim 6. And, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the display means recited in claim 1 encompasses Paul’s glitch count 23 (see Fig. 2; col. 15, ll. 34-35), log buffer (see col. 5, l. 28; col. 13, ll. 22, 27), video display (see col. 5, l. 30; col. 13, l. 27; col. 15, l. 42), and/or digital printout (see col. 5, l. 29; col. 10, l. 33; col. 13, ll. 23, 26; col. 15, l. 42), which are used to track, analyze, and predict disturbances as described at column 5, lines 19-32, column 10, lines 30-33, column 13, lines 18-27, and column 15, lines 32-43, including type, quantity, duration, and time/date of disturbance (i.e., power anomaly). Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. Thus, with regard to claims 1-6 and 15, Appellants’ contention that Facchetti and Paul, whether taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the recited display means (claim 1) (Br. 7-10) is not persuasive. And, for similar reasons, Appellants’ arguments (Br. 10-11) that claims 7-13 and 15-17 are also patentable over Facchetti and Paul for the same reasons as provided with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s reliance (Ans. 4-5, 13) upon Paul as teaching all of the features of the disturbance (i.e., power anomaly) analysis and display means of independent claim 1, and the Examiner’s reliance (Ans. 3-10) upon the combined teachings of Facchetti and Paul as teaching or suggesting the system, interface, and method for displaying information relating the monitoring of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) including total quantity of power anomaly occurrences for each power anomaly type Appeal 2011-011143 Application 10/318,996 6 and the time battery of the UPS was provided for the corresponding occurrences recited in independent claims 1 and 7, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claim 10. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 10 as being obvious over the combination of Facchetti and Paul. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-17 for the reasons provided as to claims 1, 7, and 10 from which these claims respectively depend. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Facchetti and Paul. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-17 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED bab Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation