Ex Parte Krebs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12893225 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/893,225 09/29/2010 Peter Leonard Krebs
30764 7590 09/30/2016
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
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.
25HC-156962 3713
EXAMINER
HANN,JAYB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
DOCKETING@SHEPPARDMULLIN.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER LEONARD KREBS, V ARUN SINGH,
KARL GUSTAV V ARNIK, GEORGE ALBERT MIGUEL, and
MADS NAESTHOLT JENSEN
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-19, 21-39, and 41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 20, 40, 42, and 43 are canceled. App. Br. (Claims App'x) 5, 9, 10.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sefaira, Inc. App. Br.
1.
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claims
Claims 1, 21, and 41 of Appellants' invention are independent. Claim
1, copied below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer program product for analyzing
architectural structures, the product comprising a non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium in which program
instructions are stored, the program instructions configured to
cause a computer system to:
accept input from a user defining a first architectural
structure at a first geographic location, the first architectural
structure having a first three-dimensional geometry represented
by first three-dimensional data;
obtain first location-related data regarding the first
geographic location;
apply a design concept to the first architectural structure
using the first three-dimensional geometry of the first
architectural structure, the design concept comprising a plurality
of user-selected design options having respective parameter
values; wherein the application of the design concept to the first
architectural structure using the first three-dimensional geometry
comprises applying the user-selected design options to the first
architectural structure according to the respective parameter
values, populating a first set of the respective parameter values
with one or more user-defined parameter values, and populating
a second set of the respective parameter values with one or more
informed assumptions, and wherein the user-defined parameter
values and the informed assumptions enable the design concept
to be used with the architectural structure during an energy
simulation of the architectural structure;
determine a first performance of the first architectural
structure based on the application of the design concept to the
first architectural structure using the first three-dimensional
geometry and the first location-related data, thereby producing
first analysis data;
accept input from the user defining a second architectural
structure at a second geographic location, the second
2
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
architectural structure having a second three-dimensional
geometry represented by second three-dimensional data, the
second geographic location being distinct from the first
geographic location, and the second three-dimensional geometry
being distinct from the first three-dimensional geometry;
obtain second location-related data regarding the second
geographic location;
apply the design concept to the second architectural
structure using the second three-dimensional geometry of the
second architectural structure; and
determine a second performance of the second
architectural structure based on the application of the design
concept to the second architectural structure using the second
three-dimensional geometry and the second location-related
data, thereby producing second analysis data.
App. Br. 26 (Claims App'x).
The Examiners Rejections
Claims 1-18, 21-38, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chaisuparasmikul (US 2008/0249756 Al; published
Oct. 9, 2008), Fitch et al. (US 2011/0246381 Al; published Oct. 6, 2011)
("Fitch"), and Craig Christensen et al., BE opt Software for Building Energy
Optimization: Features and Capabilities, NREL/TP-550-39929 1-16
(2006) ("Christensen"). See Final Act. 3--41.
Claims 19 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chaisuparasmikul, Fitch, Christensen, Fassio et al. (US
2009/0144097 Al; published June 4, 2009) ("Fassio"), and Conover (US
2009/0125283 Al; published May 14, 2009). See Final Act. 41--48.
3
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
"Apply a Design Concept"
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that
Chaisuparasmikul teaches or suggests the limitation "apply a design concept
to the first architectural structure," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 15-
17. The disputed limitation describes "design concept" as "comprising a
plurality of user-selected design options having respective parameter
values." The limitation also provides that "application of the design concept
to the first architectural structure" comprises "applying the user-selected
design options to the first architectural structure according to the respective
parameter values," "populating a first set of the respective parameter values
with one or more user-defined parameter values," and "populating a second
set of the respective parameter values with one or more informed
assumptions."
Appellants argue Chaisuparasmikul merely discloses extracting
structure information from a CAD file and entry of alternative structure
information, not "application of a design concept" as claimed. App. Br. 15-
16 (citing Chaisuparasmikul i-fi-1 34--3 5); Reply Br. 2 ("the extraction of
structural information is the opposite of applying a design concept").
Further, Appellants argue "a design concept as set forth in the present
application is not analogous to [Chaisuparasmikul's] information regarding
the actual structural elements/aspects of a building." Reply Br. 2; see App.
Br. 16.
With regard to populating the first set of respective parameter values,
Appellants argue " [ Chaisuparasmikul' s] original structural component
cannot be interpreted as a first set of respective parameter values (of the
4
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
applied design concept) because any parameters associated with the original
structural component are no longer applicable to the structure" when the user
enters alternative structural components. App. Br. 17. With regard to
populating a second set of respective parameter values with one or more
informed assumptions, "Appellant submits that the term 'informed
assumptions' as recited in independent claim 1 is defined as an estimated
impact analysis provided by the claimed system and method in a less amount
of time than more detail-oriented embodiments." App. Br. 18 (citing Spec. i-f
74).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 2-3),
the plain language of claim 1 read in light of Appellants' Specification
provides that "design options" include changes to an architectural structure,
construction choices for the architectural structure "(e.g., construction type,
wall type, fenestration type, roof type, insulation)," and various other
choices such as an energy source, a water source, a heating choice, and a
cooling choice. Spec. i-f 59; accord Spec. i-f 70 ("design options may include
... a change to the architectural structure," among other choices); App. Br.
37 (dependent claim 3 similarly defining "design options"). As cited by the
Examiner (Final Act. 4 (citing Chaisuparasmikul i-fi-135, 42); Ans. 2-3),
Chaisuparasmikul describes a plurality of user-selectable choices and
"alternative structural components" equivalent to those described as within
the scope of the claimed "design options," such as "a different type of heat
source, lighting type (florescent versus halogen; and/or wattage differences),
or room layout" (Chaisuparasmikul i-f 42). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Chaisuparasmikul' s teachings fall within a broad but
5
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
reasonable interpretation of the claimed "design options" and "design
concept."
The Examiner also found, and we agree, that the combined references
teach application of a design concept as claimed, including the "populating"
clauses, with Chaisuparasmikul' s teachings regarding applying "structure
information" from user-selected options and alternatives together with
structure information extracted from construction plans, "base line
properties" (see Fitch i-f 31; Chaisuparasmikul i-fi-1 68-7 6), environmental data
(id. i-fi-1 46, 53, 66), and other data and estimates into simulation software.
See Ans. 2-5 (citing Chaisuparasmikul i-fi-112, 33-34, 42; Christensen pp. 4--
6 (disclosing parameter values), and Fitch p. 3--4 (disclosing baseline and
efficiency factors instead of actual data)). Appellants' arguments regarding
"populating a first set of respective parameter values" misrepresent those
findings, and Appellants' arguments regarding both populating clauses fail
to substantively address the references' combined teachings.
Further, we disagree with Appellants that "informed assumptions" is
"defined as an estimated impact analysis provided by the claimed system
and method ... "(App. Br. 18) as that interpretation is inconsistent with the
plain language of claim 1: "populating a second set of respective parameter
values with one or more informed assumptions." Moreover, the cited
portion of Appellants' Specification does not define the term informed
assupmtions; at best, Appellants' arguments are premised on reasons for
using informed assumptions. See Spec. i-f 7 4 ("[S]ome embodiments are
configured to make certain informed assumptions during the analysis
operation. By doing so, such embodiments are capable of providing an
estimated impact analysis in less amount of time than more accurate, detail-
6
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
oriented embodiments that make fewer assumptions or no assumptions when
analyzing)."). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the references'
disclosures of baseline data used in simulation models fall within a
reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning of the term as used in claim 1.
See, e.g., Bryan Pfaffenberger, Webster's New World Computer Dictionary
342 (Wiley Publishing, Inc., 10th ed. 2003) (defining "simulation" as "[a]n
analytical technique ... creating a model of [an] item and exploring the
model's behavior. . . . As with any model, however, a simulation is only as
good as its underlying assumptions.").
"A Second Architecture"
With reference to the limitations of claim 1 that relate to a "second
architectural structure," Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not
teach or suggest:
the ability to apply a design concept to a first architectural
structure, perform energy simulations to ascertain the
performance of the first architectural structure based on the
applied design concept, and subsequently apply the design
concept to a second architectural structure to determine the
second architectural structure's performance using the same
design concept.
App. Br. 19. According to Appellants, in contrast to claim 1, the cited
references "such as [Christensen], would require re-running an instance of a
simulation, which would necessarily entail a user to re-choose design
options, re-input information, etc."
We disagree with Appellants' arguments. As cited by the Examiner,
the cited references explicitly describe producing multiple, even "iterative,"
simulations, and nothing in claim 1 distinguishes such teachings. See Final
7
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
Act 6 (quoting Chaisuparasmikul if 12 ( " [ w] ith the method and system of
this invention, architects and building designers can visually analyze
dynamic building energy performance in response to changes of climate and
building parameters"), accord Chaisuparasmikul iii! 11 ("energy simulation
simulates the interventions and responsiveness of climate, the surrounding
environment, the building, the occupants, facilities, and other equipment by
running iterative 'what if criteria and scenarios"); 115 (explaining that
models can be linked, exchanged, reused, related, and interact with one
another; "[t]he sustainable engine of this invention is constructed from
looping network algorithms and the relationship of many elements"); see
also Chaisuparasmikul Fig. 16 (depicting a flow diagram for evaluating the
sustainability of "Alternatives" 1-n as a closed loop), iii! 11 ("energy
simulation simulates the interventions and responsiveness of climate, the
surrounding environment, the building, the occupants, facilities, and other
equipment by running iterative 'what if criteria and scenarios"), 68-112
(describing and comparing first, second, third, fourth, and fifth energy
efficiency analyses). Further, even if the cited references required a user to
re-choose design options and re-run an instance of a simulation on a second
architectural structure, nothing excludes from the scope of claim 1 instances
in which a user re-chooses "the design concept" to apply to the second
architectural structure. Cf Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. Info USA, Inc., 587
F.3d 1324, 1330-32 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obvious a claimed invention
that required performance of three steps known in the prior art, followed by
repetition of those steps).
Having considered the Examiner's rejections in light of each of
Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded of
8
Appeal2015-006972
Application 12/893,225
error and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
reasoning consistent with the analysis above. See Final Act. 3--48; Ans. 2---6.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as independent
claims 21and41 and dependent claims 2-19 and 22-39, which were not
argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for
claim 1. See App. Br. 14--24; Reply Br. 2--4.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-19, 21-39, and 41 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 ).
See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(±), 41.52(b).
AFFIRMED
9