Sense Labs, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2020

15466553 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2020)

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.
15/466,553 03/22/2017 Christopher M. Micali SAGE-0002-U03-C01-C01 2594
87084 7590 04/29/2020
GTC Law Group PC & Affiliates
One University Ave., Ste. 302B
Westwood, MA 02090
EXAMINER
ALKAFAWI, EMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2020 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):
USPATENTS@gtclawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER M. MICALI,
RYAN T. HOULETTE, and
MICHAEL S. PHILLIPS
________________

Appeal 2019-000418
Application 15/466,553
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. An oral hearing was held April
21, 2020. A transcript is being prepared and will be entered into the record
in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Sense
Labs, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000418
Application 15/466,553

2

Summary of the disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a power monitor with
more than one mode of operation.
For example, a first mode of operation may provide higher
accuracy in determining information about devices but may also
have higher latency in making determinations (e.g., identifying
state changes of devices), and a second mode of operation may
have lower accuracy but also lower latency to provide
information more quickly to end users.
Abstract.
Illustrative claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A system for providing information about devices in a
building, the system comprising:
a power monitor comprising at least one processor and at least
one memory, the power monitor configured to:
obtain a power monitoring signal by measuring an
electrical property of a power line in the building,
wherein the power line provides power to devices in the
building;
process the power monitoring signal in a first mode of
operation during a first time period to determine first
information about devices in the building; and
process the power monitoring signal in a second mode of
operation during a second time period to determine
second information about devices in the building;
a user device comprising at least one processor and at least one
memory, the user device configured to:
receive an input from a user to view information about devices
in the building;
present the first information to the user, wherein the first
information was determined by the power monitor before the
user device received the input from the user; and
Appeal 2019-000418
Application 15/466,553

3

present the second information to the user, wherein the second
information was determined by the power monitor after the user
device received the input from the user;
at least one server computer comprising at least one processor
and at least one memory, the at least one server computer
configured to:
receive the first information from the power monitor and
transmit the first information to the user device;
cause the power monitor to change from the first mode of
operation to the second mode of operation after the user
device receives the input from the user; and
receive the second information from the power monitor
and transmit the second information to the user device.
The Examiner’s rejections and cited references
The Examiner rejects claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jonsson et al. (US 2012/0280833 A1; published Nov. 8,
2012) (“Jonsson”) and Behrangard (US 2015/127185 A1; published May 7,
2015). Final Act. 3–30.
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jonsson, Behrangard, and Matsuoka et al. (US 2015/
0161020 A1; published June 11, 2015) (“Matsuoka”).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Jonsson’s
monitoring of a utility’s usage during different periods of time teaches or
suggests (1) processing a power monitoring signal in a first mode of
operation during a first time period to determine first information about
devices in the building and (2) processing the power monitoring signal in a
second mode of operation during a second time period to determine second
Appeal 2019-000418
Application 15/466,553

4

information about devices in the building. See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Jonsson
¶¶ 28, 81, 84, 86). Specifically, the Examiner finds that “different known
amounts of utility of different two periods reads on ‘first and second
modes.’” Id. at 4; see also Ans. 4 (Jonsson’s “information processing via the
power analyzer 324 . . . suggests at what level the power consumption is
operating, i.e.[,] the two different mode[s] of operation of Jonsson [0028] is
the result of the analyzed data”) (further citing Jonsson Fig. 4A, ¶¶ 66–67,
72).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because although Jonsson
teaches that the speed of rotation of a conventional utility meter varies based
on the amount of power being consumed, such variation “does not change
the single mode . . . in which Jonsson is operating, i.e., to meter aggregate
power usage.” Appeal Br. 14; see also id. at 12. Appellant argues that the
“utility meter of Jonsson only operates in one mode of operation
specifically, that it consistently monitors aggregate building electrical usage
according to a single mode of operation and never changes its mode of
operation at different periods of time.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphases added); see
also Reply Br. 6.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. The Examiner’s rejection rests
on the erroneous premise that, by measuring differing amounts of power
consumption during different periods of time, Jonsson’s utility meter (or a
pulse receiver or meter emulator attached to the utility meter) operates in
multiple modes of operation. See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4. But we agree with
Appellant that measuring how much power is being used represents a single
mode of operation.
Appeal 2019-000418
Application 15/466,553

5

The Examiner also cites to teachings in Jonsson related to outlets that
each monitor voltages, where a metering system may aggregate power
consumption to track power consumption. See Jonsson Fig. 4A, ¶¶ 66–67,
72 (cited in Ans. 4). But the Examiner does not show how distributed
monitoring relates to the disputed recitations. Even if it would have been
obvious to have a meter switch between directly monitoring the aggregate
amount of utility being used in aggregate (Jonsson ¶¶ 26–28) and
aggregating utility consumption information collected by monitoring
individual outlets (Jonsson ¶ 72), both modes of the claimed invention relate
to processing the power monitoring signal obtained “by measuring an
electrical property of a power line in the business.” That is, both modes
process the same source of information (the electrical property of the power
line) rather than distinct sources of information (e.g., measurements taken at
individual outlets).
The Examiner also finds that Behrangrad’s multiple modes of
operation for electric equipment separately teaches or suggests the claimed
first and second modes of operation of a power monitor. See Final Act. 6
(citing Behrangrad Abstract, ¶¶ 43, 53); Ans. 6 (citing Behrangrad ¶ 125).
But as Appellant shows, “[t]he only ‘modes of operation’ disclosed in
Behrangrad are first and second modes of operation of electrical devices,
such as air conditioners, that do not collect information from a power line
about devices at all, as required by the power meter of the claims.” Reply Br.
9; see also Appeal Br. 17.
We further note that although Jonsson teaches displaying both current
power usage and average power usage over a pre-determined period of time
(Jonsson ¶ 57), the Examiner merely relies on these features to teach or
Appeal 2019-000418
Application 15/466,553

6

suggest presenting first information before the user device receives an input
from a user (see Final Act. 5 (also citing Jonsson ¶¶ 42, 44)). The Examiner
does not rely on these features to teach or suggest the claimed first and
second modes of operation.
For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
findings do not show that the combination of Jonsson and Behrangrad
teaches or suggests the claimed processing of a power monitoring signal in
first and second modes of operation. The Examiner also does not show that
Matsuoka’s mathematical models cure the noted deficiency of Jonsson and
Behrangrad. Final Act. 30. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, or the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 2–20, which have similar recitations.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–19 103 Jonsson, Behrangrad 1–19
20 103 Jonsson, Behrangrad,
Matsuoka
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20
REVERSED