Ex Parte Finnerty et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201814040214 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018) 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. 14/040,214 09/27/2013 Shaun Finnerty 2013P20073US 1066 28524 7590 02/28/2018 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER EVERETT, CHRISTOPHER E Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2121 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2018 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHAUN FINNERTY, MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, and JEFFREY HRILJAC Appeal 2017-008431 Application 14/040,214 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-008431 Application 14/040,214 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a building automation system (BAS), in particular, an approach for changing behavior of BAS users to promote desired user behavior and interaction with the BAS. (Spec. 111, Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. An apparatus for modification of behavior when using a building automation system (BAS), comprising: a change record for the BAS and a user identifier from a plurality of possible user identifiers associated with one or more users reported from a building automation input device that is part of the BAS, where the user identifier is associated with a plurality of set point conditions in the BAS a memory that stores the change record for the BAS and the user identifier when received; and a controller coupled to the memory that executes a plurality of rules on the change record identifying a change in at least one of the plurality of set point conditions in the BAS that identify a behavior and generates an indication of which of the user identifiers from the plurality of user identifiers meets the behavior. Claims 1—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Castelli (US 7,873,485 B2; Jan. 18, 2011). ANALYSIS We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 8—10) that Castelli does not describe the limitations “a change record for the BAS and a user identifier from a plurality of possible user identifiers associated with one or 2 Appeal 2017-008431 Application 14/040,214 more users reported from a building automation input device that is part of the BAS, where the user identifier is associated with a plurality of set point conditions in the BAS” and “a controller coupled to the memory that executes a plurality of rules on the change record,” as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner found that the virtual universe energy conservation system of Castelli, which determines if a client is penalized for exceeding an energy usage threshold, corresponds to the limitations “a change record for the BAS and a user identifier from a plurality of possible user identifiers associated with one or more users reported from a building automation input device that is part of the BAS, where the user identifier is associated with a plurality of set point conditions in the BAS” and “a controller coupled to the memory that executes a plurality of rules on the change record.” (Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 2—3.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Castelli relates to virtual universe (VU) systems that “indicate energy usage at a physical site through a virtual environment.” (Col. 1,11. 22—24.) In particular, Castelli explains that “[t]he system can determine that the comprehensive energy usage at the physical site exceeds an energy usage threshold” (col. 1,11. 41—43) and “can also notify a virtual universe user account associated with the client that the comprehensive energy usage at the physical site exceeds the energy usage threshold” (col. 1,11. 43—45). Castelli further explains “[t]he system can penalize the VU user account for not reducing energy usage (e.g., increase subscription fees, remove avatar abilities, remove avatar items, restrict access to specific VU regions or areas, etc.).” (Col. 8,11. 51—55.) In one embodiment, Castelli explains that as a VU user account reduces energy consumption, for example, by changing the 3 Appeal 2017-008431 Application 14/040,214 air conditioner settings or turning off lights, the system accounts for the VU user account’s progress towards the energy reduction goal. (Col. 8,11. 29- 34.) Because Castelli explains that the virtual universe system determines energy usage at a physical site and includes virtual universe users with associated accounts, Castelli describes the limitation “a change record for the BAS and a user identifier from a plurality of possible user identifiers associated with one or more users reported from a building automation input device that is part of the BAS.” Moreover, because Castelli explains that the VU user accounts can be penalized for not reducing energy usage, Castelli describes the limitations “where the user identifier is associated with a plurality of set point conditions in the BAS” and “a controller coupled to the memory that executes a plurality of rules on the change record.” Appellants make several arguments regarding the Examiner’s application of Castelli. First, Appellants argue that “[t]he changing of the points in a BAS is the opening or closing a vent, turning on or off of a fan, changing the setting or mode of a thermostat” and is “[n]ot simply the monitoring of the power used by a user of appliances near an individual.” (Br. 8.) Similarly, Appellant argue that “what is claimed is not simply monitoring with power monitors the power usage as shown by a person turning lights on or off, or the power used by the HVAC system when it turns on or off,” but “[rjather, the changes in the BAS are recorded in records that have rules applied to determine and modify behavior.” (Id.) However, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not recite “changing of the points” in the BAS. As discussed previously, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitation “a change record for the BAS” is broad enough to 4 Appeal 2017-008431 Application 14/040,214 encompass the virtual universe system of Castelli, which determines energy usage. Second, Appellants argue that “user activity requires that the user must do the activity that results in energy savings and the energy savings is detected via the monitoring of the THAT INDIVIDUAL’S ENERGY usage (that is near the individual)” and accordingly, “[tjhere is no association of a user’s identifier to changes in set points of a BAS that is taught or described in the Castelli et al. patent.” (Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).) However, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not recite requiring a user behavior to be an activity which actively conserves energy. Third, Appellants argue that “there is no plurality of rules that act on change records identifying a change in at least one of the plurality of set point conditions taught or described in the Castelli et al. patent.” (Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner found that the limitation “a controller coupled to the memory that executes a plurality of rules on the change record” is broad enough to encompass the virtual universe system of Castelli, which can penalize the virtual user account for not reducing energy usage. (Ans. 2—3.) Last, Appellants argue that “Castelli et al. patent’s described approach even teaches away from what is claimed by the Applicant and is limited to monitoring one type of energy” because “[i]f a room such as a dorm room is in a building that does not have separate power meters for each room, it would be useless” (Br. 9 (emphasis omitted)) and “the set point for a fan may be activated to move air and cool an area” but “[t]he turning on a fan would be counted as added energy usage using the Castelli et al. approach” 5 Appeal 2017-008431 Application 14/040,214 (id. at 10 (emphasis omitted)). However, the question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, the Appellants’ arguments with respect to teaching away are based upon hypothetical examples, rather than citing to actual examples that are disclosed in Castelli. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Castelli describes the limitations “a change record for the BAS and a user identifier from a plurality of possible user identifiers associated with one or more users reported from a building automation input device that is part of the BAS, where the user identifier is associated with a plurality of set point conditions in the BAS” and “a controller coupled to the memory that executes a plurality of rules on the change record.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Claims 2—8 depend from independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 17 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 17, as well as dependent claims 10— 16 and 18—21, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. 6 Appeal 2017-008431 Application 14/040,214 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation