Ex Parte Lombardi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2017

12871248 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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.
12/871,248 08/30/2010 Steven A. Lombardi 110003.00267.09AB022 1420
42980 7590 12/18/2017
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./(QB)
ATTENTION: Linda Kasulke, E-7F19
1201 SOUTH SECOND STREET
MILWAUKEE, WI 53204
EXAMINER
TAN, RICHARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
Denise.Prebelski@quarles.com
raintellectu alproperty @ ra.rockwell .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN A. LOMBARDI
Appeal 2017-000171
Application 127871,24s1
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant’s invention relates generally to systems and methods
including networked meters for detecting events and capturing system data
relative to the events. (Spec.]} 3). Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A device providing power quality management for use in
an electric power system, the device comprising:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Rockwell Automation,
Inc. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000171
Application 12/871,248
an electric power system meter including a communication
interface, at least one trigger parameter, and data memory
including a buffer region and a trigger data region, the electric
power system meter adapted to capture, time stamp, and record
power system electrical parameters imposed on one or more
industrial automation devices in the buffer region, each of the
one or more industrial automation devices representing a node
in the electric power system, the power system electrical
parameters being stored in the buffer region to buffer the power
system electrical parameters as the power system electrical
parameters are captured, time stamped, and recorded for a
predetermined amount of time;
the communication interface adapted to communicate
with one or more additional electric power system meters on a
network, and the electric power system meter adapted to
transmit a capture command directly to all or a subset of the one
or more additional electric power system meters on the
network; and
wherein when the electric power system meter captures
one or more power system electrical parameters that are defined
by the at least one trigger parameter, the electrical power
system meter transmits the capture command onto the network
to instruct all or the subset of the one or more additional electric
power system meters on the network to initiate a time-
coordinated capture of their respective power system electrical
parameters that occurred at substantially the same time as the
trigger event, and store the time-coordinated capture of their
respective power system electrical parameters in their
respective trigger data region.
Claims App’x submitted January 5, 2016.
Appellant (see generally App. Br.) requests review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 22-24 rejected as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Fedirchuk et al. (US 6,545,482
2
Appeal 2017-000171
Application 12/871,248
Bl; Apr. 8, 2003) (hereinafter “Fedirchuk”) and Mason, Jr.
et al. (US 6,100,817; Aug. 8, 2000) (hereinafter “Mason”).
II. Claims 6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21 rejected as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Fedirchuk, Mason, and
Wright et al. (US 7,209,838 Bl; Apr. 24, 2007) (hereinafter
“Wright”).
III. Claims 11 and 12 rejected as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Fedirchuk, Mason, and Afzal et al.
(US 6,903,950 B2; June 7, 2005) (hereinafter “Afzal”).
IV. Claims 13, 15, and 18 rejected as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Fedirchuk, Mason, Wright, and
Afzal.
V. Claim 25 rejected as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Fedirchuk, Mason, and Taft et al. (US
2009/0281679 Al; Nov. 12, 2009) (hereinafter “Taft”).
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in
the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 5-28).
OPINION
After consideration of Appellant’s arguments and evidence and the
Examiner’s position in the Final Office Action and Answer, we AFFIRM the
obviousness determinations.
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellant, we determine
that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
3
Appeal 2017-000171
Application 12/871,248
determination that the subject matter recited in claims 1-25 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain rejections I-V.
Rejection I2
Appellant argues Fedirchuk and Mason fail to teach or suggest the
electric power system meter adapted to transmit a capture command directly
to all or a subset of the one or more additional electric power system meters
on the network. (App. Br. 5-6). Appellant argues Fedirchuk requires a
central controller/node which directs communication to and from the
individual meters. {Id. at 6). Appellant also argues Mason, like Fedirchuk,
fails to describe direct meter to meter communication. {Id. at 7). Appellant
argues the bi-directional arrows between the meters depicted in Mason
Figure 1 do not by themselves teach that the meters are capable of directly
communicating between each other. {Id. at 8). Appellant further argues
Mason specifically teaches away from describe direct meter to meter
communication. {Id. at 9; citing Mason col. 4,11. 38^10).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for the
reasons provided by the Examiner. Fedirchuk describes monitoring systems
for electrical power transmission networks. The Examiner disagrees with
Appellant that Mason fails to describe direct meter to meter communication.
2 Appellant presents substantially the same arguments for independent
claims 1 and 22. (App. Br. 5-10). Appellant does not present substantial
arguments addressing dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 23 and 24. (App. Br. 10-
12). We select independent claim 1 as representative of Rejection I and
limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Separate arguments for claims
9 and 10 will be addressed.
4
Appeal 2017-000171
Application 12/871,248
The Examiner points out that Mason discloses each of the meters contain
nodes for sending and receiving RF communications. (Ans. 10 citing Mason
cols. 5 and 6). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that meters could communicate with one another. Contrary to Appellant’s
argument, Mason describes communication between meters. Particularly
note the discussion regarding 12C and 12D (as depicted in Figure 1)
appearing in column 6 which describes meter 12C directing communication
to meter 12D. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that Mason
describes meters containing the necessary equipment for communication
with one another. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient
skill to incorporate the known communication mechanism between meters—
such as described by Mason—in monitoring systems for electrical power
transmission networks such as described by Fedirchuk. Appellant has not
directed us to evidence that monitoring systems for electrical power
transmission networks incorporating meters that are capable of direct
communication provides unexpected results.
Addressing claims 9 and 10, Appellant’s arguments reiterate the
arguments presented for independent claim 1. Appellant also argues
Fedirchuk never teaches or suggests the remote recorder can transmit timing
data to the central station ‘“of the electrical parameters that are defined by
the at least one trigger parameter.’” (App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis omitted)).
Appellant’s invention is directed to a device for providing power
quality management for use in an electric power system. Appellant’s
arguments regarding the type of data that is communicated between the
various components are not persuasive of reversible error. Claims directed
to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure.
5
Appeal 2017-000171
Application 12/871,248
See In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959) (“Claims drawn to an
apparatus must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than
function.” (citations omitted)); In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16
(CCPA 1948) (“It is trite to state that the patentability of apparatus claims
must be shown in the structure claimed and not merely upon a use, function,
or result thereof.”). Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by
what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the
structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed
function, the burden shifts to the Appellant to show that the claimed function
patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure.
See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hallman,
655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).
Rejection II
In addressing this rejection, Appellant principally argues that neither
Mason nor Wright cures the defects of Fedirchuk and relies on the
arguments presented when discussing Rejection I. (App. Br. 13-15).
As stated above, the arguments presented regarding independent
claims 1 and 22 were not found persuasive. Accordingly we affirm the
Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given
above.
Rejections III V
Appellant does not rely upon sufficiently separate arguments in
addressing the rejection of claims 1 land 12 over the combined teachings of
6
Appeal 2017-000171
Application 12/871,248
Fedirchuk, Mason, and Afzal; the rejection of claims 13, 15, and 18 over the
combined teachings of Fedirchuk, Mason, Wright, and Afzal, or the
rejection of claim 25 over the combined teachings of Fedirchuk, Mason, and
Taft. Instead, Appellant argues patentability based upon their dependencies.
(App. Br. 15-16).
As stated above, the arguments presented against the rejection of
independent claim 1 were not found persuasive. Accordingly, because
Appellant has not advanced sufficiently separate arguments against
Rejections III-V, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject of claims 11-
13, 15, 18 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
For the reasons stated above, and the reasons presented by the
Examiner, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
ORDER
The rejections of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
7