Ex Parte Frank

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2018

13534940 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/534,940 06/27/2012
34206 7590 05/23/2018
FOGG & POWERS LLC
4600 W 77th Street
Suite 305
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew Frank
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
977.199US1 6871
EXAMINER
FURDGE, LARRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2018 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):
DA VID@FOGGLA W.COM
docketing@fogglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW FRANK 1
Appeal2017-007226
Application 13/534,940
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1-10 and 14--24. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Digi International Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. See Appeal
Br. 1.
2 Claim 11 was canceled by an Amendment and Response Under 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.33, which was filed July 22, 2016, and entered by the Examiner. See
Advisory Action, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
Appeal2017-007226
Application 13/534,940
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A thermostat for controlling a first device and a second
device in a HV AC system, comprising:
a first demand circuit associated with the first device;
a second demand circuit associated with the second
device;
a first limited current source and a second limited current
source connected to the first and second demand circuits,
respectively;
an energy storage device connected to the first and
second current sources;
a DC regulator connected to the energy storage device;
and
a thermostat control connected to the DC regulator and to
the energy storage device;
wherein the thermostat control includes a charge monitor,
sleep/wake logic and a thermostat processing engine, wherein
the thermostat processing engine is configured to activate one
or more of the demand circuits as a function of a
heating/cooling profile, wherein the charge monitor monitors
energy stored in the energy storage device; and
wherein the first limited current source provides a first
limited current to the energy storage device when the first
demand circuit is not activated;
wherein the second limited current source provides a
second limited current to the energy storage device when the
second demand circuit is not activated;
wherein the sleep/wake logic is configured to place the
thermostat control in alternating periods of sleep state and wake
state based on the amount of energy stored in the energy storage
device, power requirements of the thermostat control during
periods of sleep state being less than power requirements of the
thermostat control during periods of wake state;
2
Appeal2017-007226
Application 13/534,940
wherein each of the first limited current and the second
limited current is insufficient for power requirements of the
thermostat control during periods of wake state;
wherein each of the first limited current source and the
second limited current source is configured to charge the energy
storage device during periods of sleep state;
wherein the sleep/wake logic is configured to maintain
the sleep state of the thermostat control at least until the amount
of energy on the energy storage device is sufficient for the
power requirements of the thermostat control during a
subsequent wake state.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App'x).
REJECTI0NS 3
Claims 1, 5-10, 14, 18-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Gingras (US 4,236,084, iss. Nov. 25, 1980),
Mulhouse (US 7,476,988 B2, iss. Jan. 13, 2009), and
Kates (US 2007 /0119958 Al, pub. May 31, 2007).
Claims 2--4, 15-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gingras, Mulhouse, Kates, and Scannell, Jr.
(US 2006/0123053 Al, pub. June 8, 2006) ("Scannell").
3 The rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite, and under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gingras,
Mulhouse, Kates, and Leen (US 2010/0006660 Al, pub. Jan. 14, 2010) are
mooted by Appellant's cancellation of claim 11 by an Amendment and
Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.33, which was filed July 22, 2016, and
entered by the Examiner (see Advisory Action, dated Oct. 11, 2016).
3
Appeal2017-007226
Application 13/534,940
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5-10, 14, 18-20, and 24
Rejected Over Gingras, Mulhouse, and Kates
The Examiner relies on the same findings for each of independent
claims 1, 8, 14, and 20. Final Act. 3-7 (setting forth findings regarding
claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 20). In particular, the Examiner relies on Gingras
to teach a thermostat control including a first demand circuit ( electric switch
1 in Fig. 1 ), a second demand circuit ( electrical switch 2 in Fig. 1 ), a limited
current source (full wave rectifying network 20 in Fig. 1 ), and an energy
storage device (capacitor 74 in Fig. 2A).
The Examiner finds that Gingras lacks ( 1) a charge monitor and
sleep/wake logic, (2) a charge monitor monitors energy stored in the energy
storage device, (3) a first limited current source provides a first limited
current to the energy storage device when the first demand circuit is not
activated, (4) a second limited current source that provides a second limited
current to the energy storage device when the second demand circuit is not
activated, ( 5) sleep/wake logic to place the thermostat control in alternating
periods of sleep state and wake state based on the amount of energy stored in
the energy storage device, ( 6) wherein the first and second limited currents
are insufficient for power requirements of the thermostat control during the
wake state, (7) wherein the first and second limited current sources are
configured to charge the energy storage device during periods of sleep state,
and (8) wherein the sleep/wake logic is configured to maintain the sleep
state of the thermostat control at least until the amount of energy on the
energy storage device is sufficient for the power requirements of the
thermostat control during a subsequent wake state. Final Act. 3--4.
4
Appeal2017-007226
Application 13/534,940
The Examiner relies on Mulhouse to teach a control device with a
power stealing arrangement where a limited current source provides a first
limited current to energy storage device 12 when demand circuit 16 is not
activated to charge energy storage device 12 for the obvious advantage of
sustaining the power to the control device. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner relies
on Kates to teach ( 1) a charge monitor to monitor energy stored in an energy
storage device, (2) a sleep/wake logic to place the controller in alternating
periods of sleep and wake states with power requirements for the sleep state
are less than for the wake state, (3) wherein limited current is insufficient for
power requirements of the controller during the wake state, ( 4 ), the sleep/
wake logic maintains the sleep state of the controller at least until the energy
storage device has sufficient energy for power requirements of the controller
during subsequent wake states. Id. at 5---6 ( citing Kates ,r 52).
We agree with Appellant that none of the prior art, individually or in
combination, teaches or suggests, first or second limited current sources that
provide their respective currents to the energy storage device when the first
or second demand circuit is not activated, and wherein the first and second
limited currents are insufficient for power requirements of the thermostat
during periods of a wake state and must charge the energy storage device
during periods of sleep state as claimed. Appeal Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellant describes this feature as allowing newer thermostats, which
have higher power requirements than existing current sources can meet, to
harvest current from an inactive demand circuit ( e.g., a heating or cooling
circuit that is not operating) and store the current in an energy storage device
during sleep states of the thermostat until sufficient power is stored to power
the thermostat control during a wake state. Spec. 3-5, Fig. 2.
5
Appeal2017-007226
Application 13/534,940
The Examiner acknowledges that Gingras does not teach this feature.
Final Act. 4. Nor does Mulhouse disclose "a limited current source provides
a fist [sic] limited current to an energy storage device (12) when a demand
circuit (16) is not activated," as the Examiner finds. Id. at 4--5. We agree
with the Examiner that Mulhouse discloses a control device with a power
stealing mechanism that takes power from thermostatic load 16 and stores
power on storage/power device 12 of a control device, such as a thermostat.
Id. ( citing Mulhouse, 1 :23-36). However, the claims require more.
First, Mulhouse does not take scavenged current from a circuit that is
inactive as recited in independent claims 1, 8, 14, and 20. Mulhouse only
discloses that "[p ]ower may be picked off of a supply for a thermostatic load
16" "to take power for the control device, such as thermostatic electronics"
and "may be conveyed to a storage/power device 12." Mulhouse, 1 :23-36.
There is no teaching that current is scavenged when a circuit is inactive.
Nor does Mulhouse disclose that the power and current provided to
thermostat loads 16 is in any way "insufficient" to meet the demands of the
thermostat during an active, wake state, as recited in each of the independent
claims. Indeed, Mulhouse appears to indicate that the scavenged power can
be used for the control device without any such limitation. The stored power
is used to "sustain operation" of the control device/thermostat, rather than to
power it in a wake state upon reaching a certain charge level as claimed. Id.
Nor does Kates teach these features. Kates teaches a thermostat that
controls the opening/closing of ventilation ducts. Controller 401 is powered
by power source(s) 404, 405 that may be chargeable or non-rechargeable
batteries that supply current to controller 401. Kates ,r 52; Final Act. 5
( citing id.).
6
Appeal2017-007226
Application 13/534,940
Kates does not teach first or second current sources, limited or other,
that are used to charge power sources 404, 405 when the current source is
inactive. Kates merely discloses that one or more of power sources 404, 405
is recharged. Kates ,r 52. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure of
current sources that are insufficient to power operation of controller 401 or
that charge power sources 404, 405 during an inactive period as claimed.
Even if the prior art taught such claimed features, the Examiner has
not provided a sufficient reason to include these features in Gingras, which
stores energy in DC voltage regulator module 24 "for maintenance of this
direct current voltage during times when the output on line 22 of the full-
wave rectifying module 20 is short-circuited." Gingras, 5:55---68. Nor is
there any indication that electricity source 14 is insufficient in any way to
power the operations of the control system/thermostat in any of its states or
operations. See id. at 5:32---6:39. Gingras stores charge on capacitor 75 "to
maintain the desired output voltage (VCC) on line 26 during times when the
output line 22 of the full-wave rectifying network is effectively equal to the
potential on ground line 69." Id. at 8:13-20.
Even if the power-saving sleep/wake logic of Kates were applied to
Gingras, the resulting modification would control operation of capacitor 7 5
rather than a thermostat controller that operates at a higher power level in a
wake state and a lower power level in a sleep state, as claimed. Nor has the
Examiner explained sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have wanted to
make Gingras' current source 14 a limited current source that is insufficient
to power operations of the controller when Gingras is configured to charge
an energy storage device 24 without using a limited current source. Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5-10, 14, 18-20, and 24.
7
Appeal2017-007226
Application 13/534,940
Claims 2-4, 15-17, and 21-23
Rejected Over Gingras, Mulhouse, Kates, and Scannell
The Examiner's reliance on Scannell to teach a thermostat control
with a Wi-Fi wireless interface that complies with the Zigbee standard does
not overcome the deficiencies of Gingras, Mulhouse, and Kates as to any of
claims 1, 14, and 20 from which claims 2--4, 15-17, and 21-23 depend
respectively. See Final Act. 8; Appeal Br. 18-19. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-10 and 14--24.
REVERSED
8