Ex Parte Motoyama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2009

11104198 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TETSURO MOTOYAMA
____________

Appeal 2008-3828
Application 11/104,198
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided1: March 31, 2009
____________
Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Data (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-3828
Application 11/104,198

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention relates generally to power conservation.
More particularly, the present invention relates to managing power
consumption in buildings. (Spec. 1, para. [0004]).
Independent claim 2 is illustrative:
2. A computer-implemented method for managing
resources in a building, the computer-implemented method
comprising:

receiving a data signal that indicates that a user has
entered the building; and,

in response to receiving a data signal that indicates that a
user has entered the building;

identifying a first set of one or more resources that
are disposed in the building as associated with only the
user;

causing the first set of one or more resources that
are disposed in the building and associated with only the
user to be activated;

identifying a second set of one or more resources
that are disposed in the building and associated with a
logical group that includes as members both the user and
one or more other users; and

Appeal 2008-3828
Application 11/104,198

3
causing the second set of one or more resources
that are disposed in the building and associated with the
logical group that includes as members both the user and
the one or more other users to be activated.

THE REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the anticipation and obviousness rejections:
Myllymäki US 6,348,867 B1 Feb. 19, 2002
Togawa US 6,715,088 B1 Mar. 30, 2004

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 2-6, 9-15, 18-24, 27, and 28,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Myllymäki.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Myllymäki in
view of Togawa.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in determining
Myllymäki discloses the limitations of “identifying a second set of one or
more resources that are disposed in the building and associated with a
logical group that includes as members both the user and one or more other
users,” and “causing the second set of one or more resources that are
Appeal 2008-3828
Application 11/104,198

4
disposed in the building and associated with the logical group that includes
as members both the user and the one or more other users to be activated?”

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. If
that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shifts to the applicant.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Anticipation
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984). For a prior art reference
to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed
invention must be identically shown in a single reference. However, this is
not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
FINDINGS OF FACT
In our analysis infra, we rely on the following findings of fact (FF)
that are supported by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Myllymäki discloses a wrist transmitter unit 11 that transmits
signals to a receiver and control apparatus 12. (Col. 3, ll. 12-
20).
2. Myllymäki discloses that the wrist unit 11 transmits
physiological signals when the user enters a monitored area.
Appeal 2008-3828
Application 11/104,198

5
The physiological signals transmitted by the wrist unit 11
control the required heating and ventilation unit. (Col. 4, ll.
25-32).
3. Myllymäki is silent with regards to a set of resources associated
with a logical group that includes as members both the user and
one or more other users.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection of claims 2-6, 9-15, 18-24, 27, and 28
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6, 9-15, 18-24, 27,
and 28 as being anticipated by Myllymäki. Appellant contends that
Myllymäki fails to disclose identifying a second set of one or more resources
that are disposed in the building and associated with a logical group that
includes as members both the user and one or more other users, and causing
the second set of one or more resources that are disposed in the building and
associated with the logical group that includes as members both the user and
the one or more other users to be activated, as recited in claim 2. (App. Br.
7).
The Examiner determined that the above-mentioned limitations are
disclosed by Myllymäki in that Myllymäki discloses programming a number
of wrist units in a single receiver and control apparatus. (Ans. 11). The
Examiner further contended that the logical group includes as members the
user and one or more other users wearing the aforementioned wrist unit:
“Therefore, the shared resources, such as doors, burglar surveillance
systems, heating and ventilation systems and lights are associated with the
Appeal 2008-3828
Application 11/104,198

6
multiple users with the corresponding wrist units and such shared resources
would be activated in response to the user entering the building.” (Ans. 11-
12).
It is our view that the Examiner findings do not fairly meet the
limitations of claim 2. In particular, the Examiner has stated that the
claimed “second set of shared resources” corresponds to Myllymäki’s set of
associated wrist units. (Ans. 4 and 11). However, the Examiner further
states that “the shared resources, such as doors, burglar surveillance systems,
heating and ventilation systems and lights, . . . would be activated in
response to the user entering the building.” (Ans. 11-12). Thus, the
Examiner has identified both the associated wrist units, (which the Examiner
also determined was the first set of one or more resources, see Ans. 4) and
the listed shared resources (heating and ventilation etc.) as the identified
second set of resources that are activated when the user enters the building,
as recited in claim 2. It is our view that, the associated wrist units, as an
additional set of resources, are not activated when the user enters a building.
(FF 1-2). In addition, we agree with Appellant that Myllymäki does not
disclose that the shared resources (heating and ventilation etc.) are a part of a
logical group as claimed, or that the shared resources are identified as being
a part of any particular group in Myllymäki. (FF 3).

Based on the record before us, we find that Appellant has shown error
in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 2. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 as being anticipated by
Myllymäki.
Appeal 2008-3828
Application 11/104,198

7
We further note that the remaining independent claims 11 and 20,
similarly recite the limitations of identifying a second set of one or more
resources associated with a logical group being activated when the user
enters a building. Accordingly, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 11 and 20, as well as dependent clams 3-6, 9, 10, 12-15, 18, 19, 21-
24, 27, and 28, for the reasons discussed supra.

Obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25, and 26
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25,
and 26 as being unpatentable over Myllymäki and Togawa. We note that
claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25, and 26 depend from independent claims 2, 11, and 20
that were discussed above.
We do not find, nor does the Examiner establish, that Togawa cures
the deficiencies of Myllymäki that were discussed above. Thus, for this
reason, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25,
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Myllymäki in
view of Togawa.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude the
following:
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in determining that
Myllymäki teaches the claimed limitations of “identifying a second set of
one or more resources that are disposed in the building and associated with a
logical group that includes as members both the user and one or more other
Appeal 2008-3828
Application 11/104,198

8
users,” and “causing the second set of one or more resources that are
disposed in the building and associated with the logical group that includes
as members both the user and the one or more other users to be activated.”
(independent claim 2).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2-6, 9-15, 18-24, 27,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

pgc

HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP
2055 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 550
SAN JOSE, CA 95110