Ex Parte San Andres et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201613293746 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/293,746 13077 7590 Sutherland GE Suite 2300 999 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11/10/2011 Ramon Juan San Andres 05/19/2016 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. 19441-1050 1198 EXAMINER SHERWIN,RYANW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2016 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): patent. docket@sutherland.com pair_sutherland@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMON JUAN SAN ANDRES, MARC KARL LOSEE, and ATUL NIGAM Appeal2015-001097 1 Application 13/293,746 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to detecting and responding to power events such as power outages. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1 Appellants identify the General Electrical Company as the real party in interest. See App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-001097 Application 13/293,746 1. A power grid event detection apparatus, comprising: an event detection unit to detect at least a location of an event in a power grid; a customer location unit to receive an input from an interested party identifying a location of interest to the interested party, to associate the location of interest with a location in the power grid, and to determine, based on detecting the location of the event in the power grid, whether the location of the event corresponds to the location of interest to the interested party; and a rule application unit to determine whether to perform an action designated by the interested party at least when the location of the event corresponds to the location of interest to the interested party. References and Rejections Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,963,285 B2, Nov. 8, 2005) ("Fischer") and Beeco et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2011/0116387 Al, May 19, 2011) ("Beeco"). ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments, and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Fischer teaches "a customer location unit to receive an input from an interested party identifYing a location of interest to 2 Appeal2015-001097 Application 13/293,746 the interested party, to associate the location of interest with a location in the power grid," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 2 The Examiner finds: a customer location unit to receive an input from an interested party identifying a location of interest to the interested party [Fischer's] Figure 5 - Pet Store in Bedford and Column 14, Line 52 - Column 15, Line 56 teach a customer submitting information via a website with one or more webpages to the electric utility or other service provider[.] Final Act. 3. Appellants argue: Nothing in Fischer discloses that the customer enters any information regarding a "location-of-interest." At best, the system of Fischer assumes that a location of the customer is a location where the customer would be interested in knowing of outages. However, Fischer does not allow for the customer to indicate which location the customer considers to be of interest. Thus, while Fischer limits notifications to a customer location, the language of Applicant's claim allows any interested party to indicate any desired location as being of-interest. App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2. The Examiner responds: Due to the broad nature of the claim language, it is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation that when the system of Fischer receives the submitted webpage from a customer, that the customer is providing an input to the system which indicates that a location for which the webpage is being submitted is a location of interest to the customer. Based on this interpretation, a customer is indicating that a location is a location of interest by submitting the webpage. Ans. 3 (emphasis added). 2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal2015-001097 Application 13/293,746 We disagree with the Examiner. The Examiner maps the claimed "location in the power grid" to Fischer's "Device ID and Device Type" of Figure 5. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner initially maps the claimed "location of interest" to Fischer's "Pet Store in Bedford" of Figure 5. See Final Act. 3. Fischer describes the following in connection with Figure 5: FIG. 5 [is] an exemplary interface or webpage 100 provided by an electric utility or other service provider ... the customer may provide information relevant to the outage notification, such as contact information for the appropriate individual( s) to be contacted, where the contact information may include, for example, fax numbers, telephone numbers, pager numbers, or email addresses to contact in the event of an outage. Fischer 14:52-64. Consistent with the description above, Fischer's Figure 5 indicates the "Pet Store in Bedford" is associated with the account prior to submission of the cited information-not by "a customer submitting information via a website" in connection with Figure 5, as asserted by the Examiner (Final Act. 3). Therefore, the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited Fischer portions teach "a customer location unit to receive an input from an interested party identifying a location of interest to the interested party," as required by the claim. The Examiner's response in the Answer is also inadequate. The Examiner newly maps the claimed "location of interest" to the "location for which the webpage is being submitted." Ans. 3. But under that new mapping, the Examiner has not explained how the cited portions of Fischer teach "a customer location unit to receive an input ... identifying a location of interest to the interested party" or "associate[ing] the location of interest 4 Appeal2015-001097 Application 13/293,746 with a location in the power grid," as required by the claim. For example, the cited Fisher portions do not describe where the "location for which the webpage is being submitted" is, and do not describe associating such location "with a location in the power grid," as required by the claim. See Fischer, Fig. 5; 14:52-15:56. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-13 for similar reasons. For similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 14 and 17, which recite features similar to the disputed limitation, and corresponding dependent claims 15, 16, and 18-20. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation