Ex Parte Foslien et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

14059364 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
14/059,364 10/21/2013 Wendy Foslien H0026381C1-1161.1524102 2985
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
MASINICK, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
Honeywell.USPTO@STWiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENDY FOSLIEN, THOMAS GALL,
ROB TROUT, JAKE MAYHER, JOSEPH S. MAJEWSKI,
PAUL KLEINHANS, and AYMAN MOHAMED
Appeal 2016-007370
Application 14/059,364
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—5, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-007370
Application 14/059,364
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to displaying energy-related information.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A mechanism for displaying energy information,
comprising:
a processor;
a user interface connected to the processor;
a display connected to the processor and the user interface;
and
one or more detectors situated at one or more sites,
respectively, connected to the processor, and configured to
indicate amounts of units of energy consumption at the one or
more sites; and
wherein:
the display provides a visualization to reveal the
amounts of units of energy consumption at the one or more sites;
the one or more sites comprise one or more pieces
of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment and/or
lighting equipment;
a first element of the visualization provides a
calendar view of measurements and for comparison of amounts
of units of energy consumption at the one or more sites across
days of a week, weeks of a month and/or weeks of a year;
a second element of the visualization provides daily
profile views for analyses of amounts of units of energy
consumption of operation of pieces of heating, ventilation and air
conditioning equipment and/or lighting equipment at the one or
more sites; and
a unit of energy is selected from a group comprising
joules, BTUs and KWHs.
2
Appeal 2016-007370
Application 14/059,364
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112
(pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Ans. 3—4.
Claims 1—4 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Botich (US 2009/0281677 Al; published Nov. 12, 2009).
Ans. 4—6.
Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Botich and Nicosia (US 2010/0042445 Al; published Feb.
18,2010). Ans. 6-7.
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejection
The Examiner rejected claim 1 as reciting new matter because “claim
1 states that the ‘unit of energy is selected from a group comprising joules,
BTUs, and KWHs’,” but “[t]he specification notes only KWHs/SF/Day
(Kilawatt hours per sq foot per day) as a measure of energy.” Final Act. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “joules, BTUs, and
KWHs are suitable and interchangeable” units of energy. Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 on this
ground.
Claims 1—5
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1—4 collectively and argue
claim 5 based on arguments presented for claim 1. Accordingly, whether the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 is dispositive.
Appellants argue claim 1 on the basis that Botich does not describe
detectors “configured to indicate amounts of units of energy consumption”
3
Appeal 2016-007370
Application 14/059,364
and a display displaying “amounts of units of energy consumption” as
claimed. App. Br. 7—15; Reply Br. 4—6.
We are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner.
Ans. 8—9. We adopt the Examiner’s findings that Botich describes
Appellants’ claimed invention as recited in claim 1. Id. 4—5.
For emphasis, we note the Examiner’s citation to paragraph 127 of
Botich, which describes generating data points for “any overall
consumption.” Ans. 5. Appellants’ argument with respect to paragraph 127
(Reply Br. 5) quotes a portion of paragraph 127 but excludes the most
relevant portion, namely that Botich’s processor can “generate a data point
at multiple time resolutions for any overall consumption or emission data for
a module, facility or enterprise, such as total electricity consumption . . . .”
Botich 1127. We understand generating a data point for “any overall
consumption . . . such as total electricity consumption” {id. (emphasis
added)) to include “amounts of units of energy consumption” in whatever
units “energy consumption” can be expressed, including “amounts of units”
expressed as “joules, BTUs and KWHs.” Moreover, we understand Botich’s
screen displays to be “exemplary” of screen displays for displaying any
energy consumption data within the scope of data described by Botich. See,
e.g., Botich 144 (“FIG. 20 illustrates an exemplary screen display of a chart
comparing actual energy consumption data with baseline levels, in
accordance with embodiments of the invention.”)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, all
argued on the same basis.
4
Appeal 2016-007370
Application 14/059,364
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5