Ex Parte Mccoy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12326999 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/326,999 12/03/2008
173 7590 05/27/2016
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RICHARD A. MCCOY
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.
US20040350 4448
EXAMINER
LIN, SHERMAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz@whirlpool.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD A. McCOY1
Appeal2014-001277
Application 12/326,999
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-30, all of the pending claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is Whirlpool Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-001277
Application 12/326,999
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a messaging architecture for
conveying information by electronic messages between a producer of a
resource, such as a utility, and a consumer of the resource, such as an
appliance. Using the information conveyed by the electronic messages, the
appliance can participate in effective management of the resource, such as
making predictions about future resource consumption and/or other
determinations about resource consumption that could be used to increase
the efficiency of the appliance. Spec. i-fi-f l---6.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitation in italics):
1. A messaging architecture stored in a non-transitory
storage medium for conveying information by electronic
messages between a producer of a resource and a consumer of
the resource, wherein the messaging architecture comprises
messages, singly or in combination, having:
a first portion representing at least one resource profile,
each resource profile having an ordered collection of
points wherein each point represents a coordinate pair of
variables related to at least one of time, cost, and amount
regarding use of the resource;
first and second identifiers representing parameters of the
resource and associated with values of each coordinate
pair; and
a second portion representing a function identifier that
designates a context of the resource profile;
whereby the first and second portions provide enough
information in the messages to effectively manage the
resource.
2
Appeal2014-001277
Application 12/326,999
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-23 and 25-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ehlers et al. (US 2004/0138981 Al; published July
15, 2004) ("Ehlers") in view of Brown, Jr. (US 5,544,036; Aug. 6, 1996)
("Brown").
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehlers in view of Brown and Hardaway et al. (US
2003/0208852 Al; published Nov. 13, 2003) ("Hardaway").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action, and the arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response to the
Examiner's Answer. We agree with Appellant's arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis below.
The Examiner finds that Ehlers discloses a
messaging architecture compris[ing] messages, singly or in
combination, having[] a first portion representing at least one resource
profile, each resource profile having an ordered collection of points
wherein each point represents a coordinated pair of variables ... [and]
first and second identifiers representing parameters of the resource
associated with values of each coordinate pair,
as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Ehlers i-fi-163, 331, Fig. 4M);
Ans. 18-19 (citing Ehlers i-fi-163, 174, 331, Fig. 4M). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Ehlers' description of information related to
instantaneous power being delivered and the accumulated power being
delivered to the utility via a gateway control node suggests measuring usage
of a resource and transferring the information in a message to a back-end
server and also provided to a user graphical user interface for reporting the
3
Appeal2014-001277
Application 12/326,999
usage of the resource over time in a graph. See Final Act. 3--4 (citing Ehlers
i-f 63). The Examiner further finds Ehlers' description of allowing the
customer to display electrical usage information on a monthly or yearly basis
suggests at least an ordered collection of points representing a coordinate
pair. See id. at.4 (citing Ehlers i-f 331 ). The Examiner explains that because
the cited graphs (e.g., Fig. 4M) present resource usage information on a
plotted graph over time, the cited prior art suggests a resource profile with a
coordinate pair of variables. See id. The Examiner still further finds Ehlers'
Figures lB and 4M suggest that measurements from metered devices are at
least communicated to the back-end server and then provided to the user.
See id. Lastly the Examiner explains "[i]nherently, the information is sent in
messages, singly or combined, to reasonably suggest that the coordinate data
of resource usage vs[.] time is effectively communicated at least from a
meter to the back-end server and finally to the customer device for viewing
the information." See id.
Appellant argues Ehlers does not describe or suggest the structure or
architecture of the messages that deliver the transmitted data. See App.
Br. 5. Appellant asserts that Ehlers' data plots that are displayed on a report
screen derive data from a variety of sources over the system, and the data is
not transmitted according to a well-defined message architecture. See id.
(citing Ehlers i-fi-1212, 311, 312, 330 and Fig. 4M). More specifically,
Appellant asserts that the message architecture of Appellant's invention has
a packet structure comprising predefined bytes for a resource profile and for
xy pairs. See id. Appellant further argues it is error to assume that Ehlers
discloses such a message architecture by its end-user plot in a display. See
id. at 6.
4
Appeal2014-001277
Application 12/326,999
We agree with Appellant's arguments because the Examiner does not
direct us to evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Ehlers teaches or
suggests a messaging architecture comprising a message or combination of
messages having a first portion representing at least one resource profile
having an ordered collection of points wherein each point represents a
coordinated pair of variables, corresponding to Appellant's claim 1. See
Ehlers i-fi-163, 81, 174, 331, Figs. lB, 4M. Much of the Examiner's position
relies on Ehlers' end-user plot illustrating energy consumption over time that
is displayed in a graphical user interface. See Ehlers Fig. 4M, i-fi-1 42, 331.
Figure 4M of Ehlers merely describes a displayed report screen without
specifying the details of the data contained in any single message or
combination of messages that may be used to generate the report screen (i.e.,
a single message or combination of messages having a first portion having
an ordered collection of points wherein each point represents a coordinate
pair of variables). See id. The remaining citations to Ehlers relied upon by
the Examiner also do not specify the details of the data contained in any
single message or combination of messages that may be used to generate the
report screen. See Ehlers i-fi-163, 81, 174, Fig. lB. Thus, the Examiner's
findings are insufficient to demonstrate that Ehlers teaches or suggests a
messaging architecture comprising a single message or combination of
messages having a first portion having an ordered collection of points,
wherein each point represents a coordinate pair of variables. As applied by
the Examiner, the teachings of Brown do not remedy the deficiencies of
Ehlers. See Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 6-7, 19-22.
For these reasons, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 and 25-30 as being unpatentable over
5
Appeal2014-001277
Application 12/326,999
Ehlers and Brown. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Hardaway
do not remedy the deficiencies of Ehlers and Brown. See Final Act. 16; Ans.
17. Therefore, for the same reasons as claim 1, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 24 and being unpatentable over Ehlers, Brown,
and Hardaway.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-30.
REVERSED
6