SIEMENS SCHWEIZ AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2021

2020003623 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2021)

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.
14/609,946 01/30/2015 JONATHAN MILES COPLEY 2013P14164 2374
27350 7590 10/29/2021
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
SAAVEDRA, EMILIO J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2021 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):
docket@patentusa.com
office@patentusa.com
vrahimis@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN MILES COPLEY, KOLJA EGER,
JOERG HAMMER, and VIVEK KULKARNI
Appeal 2020-003623
Application 14/609,946
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Schweiz
AG. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003623
Application 14/609,946
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method for automating a building having an infrastructure,
the method comprising:
[A.] acquiring at least one data time history from at least one
input device being a part of the infrastructure;
[B.] filtering automated processes out of the at least one data
time history, thereby eliminating a specific known or
learned pattern from the at least one data time history, the
specific known or learned pattern being a power and
water consumption pattern of a washing machine, the
power and water consumption pattern being detected
simultaneously through an electricity meter and through a
water meter;
[C.] averaging the at least one data time history to form an
averaged data time history;
[D.] arranging the at least one averaged data time history into
at least one occupancy pattern, the occupancy pattern
being a plot at least five sensor readings, the sensor
readings corresponding to at least five mutually different
points of time of a given day of the week;
[E.] determining at least one set point from said at least one
occupancy pattern of the building or of a part thereof; and
[F.] feeding the at least one set point into a system for heating,
ventilation, or air-conditioning.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-003623
Application 14/609,946
3
Name Reference Date
Carty et al. US 2012/0232701 A1 September 13, 2012
Donaldson et al. US 2011/0153246 A1 June 23, 2011
Larsen US 2013/0310992 A1 November 21, 2013
Haghighat-Kashani et al.
(“Kashani”)
US 2015/0012147 A1 January 8, 2015
A. Molina-Markham et al., Private Memoirs of a Smart Meter,
Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Embedded Sensing Systems
for Energy-Efficiency in Building, Zurich, Switzerland, November 02,
2010, pp. 61–66 (“Molina”)

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Carty, Molina, and Donaldson. Non-Final
Act. 4–13.
We select claim 1as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of
the § 103 rejection of claims 2–4, 6–14, and 16 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claim 17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Carty, Molina, Larsen, Kashani, and Donaldson. Non-
Final Act. 13–19.
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to
this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claim 17 further herein.
Appeal 2020-003623
Application 14/609,946
4
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
taken (Non-Final Act. 3–19); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–9) in response to the Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
The Examiner found the combination of Carty, Molina, and
Donaldson teaches or suggests, inter alia, limitation [B] of claim 1, as
referenced above in the “Claimed Subject Matter” section. See Non-Final
Act. 4–7. We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
More specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Carty teaches an
analytical engine used for monitoring and communicating with building
control systems to optimize the performance of building assets, where the
analytical engine include data stores including, inter alia: real-time building
data storage; real-time external data storage; and historical data storage. See
Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Carty ¶¶ 32–33); see also Carty ¶ 31. Carty further
teaches a method for cleaning input data including receiving building input
data (e.g., environment and physical building characteristics) and pre-
processing the input data by filtering signal noise in order to detect and
reject anomalous data. See Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Carty ¶¶ 47, 49); see
also Carty ¶ 48.
We further agree with the Examiner that Molina teaches extracting
complex usage patterns from smart meter data, including filtering out power
signatures of automated appliances (i.e., power segments that do not
Appeal 2020-003623
Application 14/609,946
5
correspond to any human interaction). See Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Molina,
63). We additionally agree with the Examiner that Donaldson teaches a
system that includes a utility meter that detects the usage of electricity by a
set of appliances and that further includes a water meter that detects the
usage of water by the set of appliances. See Non-Final Act. 7 (citing
Donaldson ¶¶ 165–168, Abstract).
Appellant argues Carly does not disclose filtering automated
processes as Carly merely discloses filtering abnormal or faulty data, and
automated processes are not equivalent to abnormal or faulty processes. See
Appeal Br. 6–14. We agree with the Examiner that this argument is not
persuasive, as the Examiner relied upon the combination of Carly and
Molina for teaching or suggesting the claimed filtering of automated
processes, rather than solely relying upon Carly. See Ans. 4–6 (citing
Molina, 63). One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
In its Reply Brief, Appellant argues Molina also does not disclose
filtering automated processes because Molina merely discloses filtering out
signatures of automated appliances, and the Examiner misunderstands the
difference between “automated appliances” and “automated processes.” See
Reply Br. 1–9. This argument is not persuasive. A claim under examination
is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying
specification. See In re American Acad. of Science Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We agree with the Examiner that the claimed
“filtering automated processes,” when interpreted broadly but reasonably,
reads on Molina’s filtering out power signatures of automated appliances.
Appeal 2020-003623
Application 14/609,946
6
See Ans. 6–7. The Examiner’s interpretation of filtering automated
processes” is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which describes
examples of “automated processes” as “a program [watering] plants on a
daily basis every evening” and “a telephone [switching] to sleep mode,”
which are examples of processes associated with automated appliances that
do not correspond to any human interaction. See Spec. ¶¶ 31–32.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–17
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–17 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–14,
16
103 Carty, Molina,
Donaldson
1–4, 6–14,
16

17 103 Carty, Molina,
Larsen, Kashani,
Donaldson
17
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–14,
16–17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-003623
Application 14/609,946
7
AFFIRMED