Ex Parte XIA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13249058 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/249,058 09/29/2011 MingyaoXIA
22862 7590 09/28/2016
GLENN PATENT GROUP
c/o Perkins Coie LLP
P.O. Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247
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.
110501-8004.USOl 6066
EXAMINER
HAIDER,FAWAAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MINGY AO XIA, ERIC GROBEL, and DAN CASTELLANO
Appeal2014-008602 1
Application 13/249,0582
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1-14, 16, and 17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Jan. 22, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed August 4, 2014), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 7, 2013) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 6, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Asoka USA
Corporation (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2014-008602
Application 13/249,058
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to "the monitoring and control of
household appliance [and more particularly] to a smart-grid having PLC
networked sensors." (Spec. 1, 11. 17-19).
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a smart-grid residential service (SRS) server
configured for communication with a wide area
network (WAN);
said SRS server configured for
communication with a master switch (MST) device
via said WAN, said MST device configured for
collection of power and utility use information for
at least one home from an associated in-home
power line communication (PLC) network;
said SRS server configured to request and
receive said power and utility use information
from said l\1ST device via said \X/i~\11'-J;
said SRS server configured for
communication with a plurality of individual
utilities via said WAN;
wherein each individual utility of the
plurality of individual utilities provides one or
more of the following services: security, water,
gas, electric, telephone, television, and Internet
connectivity;
said SRS server configured to consolidate
use information comprising a portion of said
power and utility use information, said
consolidated use information associated with each
respective utility and to send said associated
consolidated use information to said each
respective utility of said plurality of individual
utilities;
2
Appeal2014-008602
Application 13/249,058
wherein said each respective utility
generates a bill for a specified billing period in
accordance with said associated consolidated use
information; and
said SRS server configured to collect each
bill generated by said each respective utility based
on the associated consolidated use information and
to forward said each bill to said at least one home
for verification of said each bill against power and
utility use information from said MST device and
power and utility use information stored in said
SRS server for verification prior to payment of
said each bill.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3---6, 8, 10, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howarter (US
2010/0169940 Al, pub. July 1, 2010), Tyagi (US
2011/0066300 Al, pub. Mar. 17, 2011), Ehlers (2007/0043477
Al, Feb. 22, 2007), and Storch (US 2011/0184581 Al, pub.
July 28, 2011).
2. Claims 2, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Howarter, Tyagi, Ehlers, Storch, and
Prader-Thompson (US 2009/0195349 Al, pub. Aug. 6, 2009).
3
Appeal2014-008602
Application 13/249,058
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 16
Appellants argue the patentability of independent claims 1 and 16
together. We select independent claim 1 as representative, such that
independent claim 16 stands or falls therewith. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Tyagi fails to
disclose an "SRS server configured for communication with a plurality of
individual utilities" as recited in independent claim 1, i.e.,
said SRS server configured for communication with a
plurality of individual utilities via said WAN;
wherein each individual utility of the plurality of
individual utilities provides one or more of the following
services: security, water, gas, electric, telephone, television,
and Internet connectivity.
(Appeal Br. 6-7). Appellants assert that Tyagi's disclosure is limited to an
electric utility (id.). First, as a matter of claim requirements, independent
claim 1 does not require multiple types of utilities. Rather, it requires "one
or more" of the listed types, and "electric" services meets the "one or more"
requirement. With respect to the requirement of "a plurality of individual
utilities," the Examiner relies on paragraph 89 of Ehlers (Final Act. 4).
Indeed, Ehlers (i-f 89) describes a system for managing multiple sources and
types of energy, e.g., energy brokers, ESP's and utilities. In any event, as set
forth below, Ehlers also describes the use of multiple types of utilities.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Ehlers fails to
disclose an SRS server as recited (Appeal Br. 7). The Specification does not
define an SRS server but states that "[a] smart-grid residential service (SRS)
uses connected sensors for integrated service monitoring and control of
4
Appeal2014-008602
Application 13/249,058
home appliances via the Internet and an in-home PLC [power line
communication] network." (Spec. 3, 11. 30-32). We agree with the
Examiner's finding that the processor of Ehlers (i-f 89) meets the SRS
limitation (see Final Act. 4). For example, Ehlers discloses a server that
monitors usage (including whole house metering) and controls loads,
including controlling thermostats and electric water heaters (Ehlers, i1i1 89--
90). Ehlers uses several networks attached to a server, including the
internet, a secure network, and local radio frequency communications (i-f 84,
Figure lB). Further, the Examiner also relies on the utility control center
described in paragraphs 19--29 and Figures 1 and 2 of Tyagi (Final Act.
(Final Act. 3). We agree with the Examiner's findings.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Howarter fails to
disclose monitoring in the residential context (Appeal Br. 9) because, as
above, Ehlers does.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Howarter' s plug
126 fails to collect power or utility use information (Appeal Br. 9) because
the Examiner relies on Tyagi (i-fi-f 19-20 & Figs. 1-2) for collection of use
information. Indeed, Tyagi (i-f 19) discloses "smart" utility meters that
measure usage loads from meters at the premises.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner's
rationale for combining the teachings of Howarter and Tyagi is conclusory,
or without an explanation as to how Howarter' s system would be modified
(Appeal Br. 10). Rather the Examiner relies on the teachings ofTyagi for
the motivation to modify the system of Howarter to collect information from
individual units (see Final Act. 3). We agree with the Examiner's
conclusion. Although Howarter discloses a network for displaying media
5
Appeal2014-008602
Application 13/249,058
content (see Abstr.), Tyagi (e.g., i123) discloses the benefit of utility
consumers participating in a demand response program, in communication
with a utility network, for modulating the use of energy, as described in
Tyagi. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to use the communications network of
Howarter for regulating the use of devices, in order to obtain energy
benefits, as taught by Tyagi.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' assertion, made without specific
citations, that Ehlers fails to disclose communication with more than one
utility at a time, and that Ehler' s statement regarding electricity and gas is
ambiguous (Appeal Br. 8-9). Rather, we find that Ehlers is specific in
referring to multiple sources and utilities. First, as above, the Examiner
points to paragraph 89 of Ehler, which discloses "managing the sources and
types of energy units to be utilized and committed to will be distributed (at
energy brokers, ESP's and utilities) and operate over a communications
network. .. "(see Final Act. 4). Paragraphs 191 and 194 of Ehlers explain
that electricity is being used as an example but that monitoring nodes and
meters may be associated with gas, water, electric, or steam. Paragraph 206
of Ehlers goes into further detail on monitoring the rate of water usage using
a module. The system of Ehlers is directed to multiple utilities, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art reading Ehlers would immediately envisage the
utilities being monitored at the same time. See Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll
Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to explain the reasoning for
the combination of Howarter and Ehlers (see Reply Br. 2). However, the
Examiner relies on the Abstract of Ehlers for the understanding that the
6
Appeal2014-008602
Application 13/249,058
system of Ehlers is beneficial to manage delivery of energy from a
distribution network to one or more sites (see Final Act. 4). We agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to further modify the
combination of Howarter and Tyagi with the teachings of Ehlers in order to
better manage the delivery of energy to individual sites.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of
independent claims 1 and 16.
Dependent claim 13
Appellants argue that paragraph 17 of Howarter fails to disclose a
statement of power and utility use in a format traceable to individual
appliances, as recited in dependent claim 13, i.e.,
power and utility use of the home, provided as a consolidated
statement, where such power and utility use information is
retained in a format that allows tracing of use back to
individual connected appliances in the home to allow a user
full capability to monitor and control the use; and
miscellaneous information that supports the user.
(Appeal Br. 11). However, the Examiner relies on paragraph 275 of Ehlers.
Indeed, paragraph 275 describes a breakdown of energy units consumed by
individual appliances when that feature is activated. Paragraph 268 explains
that the information is maintained and stored by the system, and paragraph
311 explains that the information may be displayed on a GUI (graphical user
interface). We find that these meets the limitation of a statement where the
information is retained in a format traceable to individual appliances being
monitored. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of
dependent claim 13 .
7
Appeal2014-008602
Application 13/249,058
Dependent claims 2-12, 14, and 17
Appellants do not argue the patentability of dependent claims 2-12,
14, and 17 separately from claims 1 and 16, from which they depend. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of claims 2-12, 14,
and 17, for similar reasons as for independent claims 1 and 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14, 16, and 17 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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8