Ex Parte Ganu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

13445645 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/445,645 04/12/2012
89885 7590 09/16/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tanuja Hrishikesh Ganu
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.
IN920120027US1 790.153 7367
EXAMINER
SHECHTMAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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 T ANUJA HRISHIKESH GANU,
SHIVKUMAR KAL Y ANARAMAN,
DEVASENAPATHI PERIAGRAHARAM SEETHARAMAKRISHNAN,
and LIYANAGE CHANDRATILAK DE SILVA
Appeal2015-003651
Application 13/445,645
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003651
Application 13/445,645
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 18-25. Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 were previously
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal read as follows:
1. A method comprising:
providing an electrical load scheduling mechanism;
placing the electrical load scheduling mechanism in
communication with an appliance;
the electrical load scheduling mechanism comprising an
object which is separable from the appliance and which
transmits electrical power between an electrical grid and the
appliance;
assessing electrical grid load conditions from the
electrical load scheduling mechanism;
accepting user input at the electrical load scheduling
mechanism; and
scheduling delivery of electrical power to the appliance
via the electrical load scheduling mechanism;
said scheduling comprising altering a predetermined
delivery of electric power to the appliance based on the
assessed electrical grid conditions and on the accepted user
input.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2015-003651
Application 13/445,645
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12-15, 18, 19, 21, and 25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Besore (US 2012/004963 Al,
Mar. 1, 2012). Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, 18, 19, and 21-25, are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vitale (US 2010/0174667 Al,
July 8, 2010). Final Act. 5-8.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13-15, and 19-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Donnelly (US 7,010,363 B2, Mar. 7,
2006) in view O'Donnell (US 6,181,985 Bl, Jan. 30, 2001). Final Act. 9-
12.
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because:
In the outstanding Office Action, the Examiner notes that
Claim 1 is "directed to a method with steps and also an
apparatus mechanism with structure", insisting that claims
including "both an apparatus and the method steps of using the
apparatus" is "indefinite". (See Office Action, p. 2, item 1.)
While referring to no specific portion of Claim 1 deemed to be
"indefinite", the Examiner also provides no backing for this
assertion from any other source .
. . . Applicants infer that the Examiner may, at least in
part, be indirectly referring to the language of lines 5-7 of
Claim 1 ("the electrical load scheduling mechanism
comprising ... "). Respectfully, this language, as added by
amendment on December 10, 2013, serves to modify and
clarify the method step of "placing the electrical load
scheduling mechanism in communication with an appliance".
In other words, it can be appreciated, even inherently,
that a step of placing an electrical load scheduling mechanism,
itself having given characteristics, in communication with an
3
Appeal2015-003651
Application 13/445,645
appliance may be regarded as dij]erent from a step ofplacing
another indeterminate object (e.g., an electrical load
scheduling mechanism, with different characteristics), in
communication with an appliance. Accordingly, it is submitted
that structural characteristics of an element can indeed influence
the manner in which a method step is carried out, thus helping
inform a distinct definition of the step.
App. Br. 20-21 (emphasis added).
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
5, 6, 8, 12-15, 18, 19, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because:
[I]ndependent Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite, inter alia, an
assessment of electrical grid load conditions as well as an
acceptance of user input. At the very least, there is no adequate
teaching or suggestion in Besore of these features .... Besore
states no provision for this to be used in assessing electrical
grid load conditions, especially to the extent that this
assessment is employed in scheduling the delivery of electrical
power ....
App. Br. 14--15 (emphasis added).
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
5, 6, 8-15, 18, 19, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because:
[I]n Vitale a control module 102 serves as part of the
aforementioned control system, and can delay charging based
on a charging schedule. As discussed in para. 0030 of Vitale, if
a user does not want to delay charging, but wants to override
the delay and begin charging immediately, the user may press
an override button. Yet apart from rudimentary user
intervention of this nature, there is nothing in Vitale to teach or
suggest concerted scheduling on a basis of assessed electrical
grid conditions and accepted user input. In this context, a
function of merely pressing a button as an override is scarcely
more sophisticated than plugging or unplugging from a wall
outlet, thus, it is respectfully submitted that such activity cannot
possibly be construed as user input (for scheduling) ....
4
Appeal2015-003651
Application 13/445,645
App. Br. 16-17 (emphasis added).
4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 2, 6-10, 13-15, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Donnelly fails to teach an arrangement where scheduling
delivery of electrical power takes place via an electrical load
scheduling mechanism comprising an object which is separable
from the appliance and which transmits electrical power
between an electrical grid and the appliance, and via assessing
electrical grid load conditions from the electrical load
scheduling mechanism itself ....
. . . [T]here is nothing in 0 'Donnell to teach or suggest
that any user input can be employed in conjunction with
assessed electrical grid conditions to schedule delivery of
electrical power to an appliance.
App. Br. 18-20 (emphasis added).
Issues on Appeal1
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-12 as
being indefinite?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, 18,
19, and 21-25 as being anticipated?
3. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1, 2, 6-10, 13-15,
and 19-23 as being obvious?
1 Appellants argue claims 1, 13, and 14 together. See App. Br. 13-20.
Further, separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 5-12, 15, and 18-
25. Id. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2, 5-12, 15, and 18-25 are
not discussed further herein.
5
Appeal2015-003651
Application 13/445,645
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we agree with Appellants'
arguments.
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Contrary to Appellants' arguments about "grid conditions,"
we agree with the Examiner that paragraphs 24 and 34 of Besore disclose
this limitation, which teaches "[a]s an intelligent and self-adaptive
instrument, it learns consumption profiles, grid conditions, such as peak
times and supply-demand imbalance situations," and "grid sensing module
114 (FIG. 2) can readily serve to detect supply-demand imbalance." Ans. 4
(citing Besore, Figure 2).
Further, contrary to Appellants' argument that Besore fails to teach
"user input," we agree with the Examiner that Besore discloses "the user can
manually set the setpoint shits for a given demand response input (e.g.,
paragraphs 18, 35), which reads on the user input claimed." Ans. 5.
We have considered Appellants' other arguments and we also do not
find them persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2,
5, 6, 8, 12-15, 18, 19, 21, and 25.
As to Appellants' above contention 3 with respect to Appellants'
argument that Vitale fails to teach "user input," we agree with the Examiner
that Vitale discloses in paragraph 2 8:
"[U]ser interface 108 can also incorporate an override switch to
permit a consumer 110 to override any decisions or
computations of the "smart" plug". In this regard, Vitale
teaches a user may provide input for adjusting the charging
6
Appeal2015-003651
Application 13/445,645
schedule (paragraph 24), and further teaches, e.g., if the
charging is delayed and the user does not desire a delay, the
user may indicate through a user input that charging should
begin and thereafter the charging schedule will be updated and
charging can begin (paragraph 42), which the examiner
respectfully submits reads on scheduling includes altering a
predetermined delivery of electric power to an appliance based
on accepted user input.
Ans. 5---6.
As to Appellants' argument that Vitale fails to teach "grid conditions"
we agree with the Examiner that Vitale discloses "utility data used in Fig. 5
for the scheduling in Fig. 5 (paragraphs 37--43) includes voltage level
available at utility power socket 172 (paragraph 40), and is used to
continually update the charging schedule (paragraph 40 and loop in Fig. 5)."
Ans. 6-7.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, 18,
19, and 21-25.
As to Appellants' contention 4, Appellants provided additional
arguments with respect to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13-15, and
19-23 (App. Br. 18-20). The Examiner has rebutted each of those
arguments in the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence (Ans. 7-8).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning
and adopt them as our own. Consequently, we conclude there is no
reversible error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13-15, and
19-23.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15,
18, 19, and 21-25 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
7
Appeal2015-003651
Application 13/445,645
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13-15,
and 19-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, 2, and 5-12 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, 18, 19,
and 21-25 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13-15, and
19-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-12 as being indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
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
8