Ex Parte Hoeynck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2015

12183361 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/183,361 07/3112008
10800 7590 12/17/2015
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Hoeynck
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.
1576-1549 5477
EXAMINER
RAPP, CHAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HOEYNCK and BURTON W. ANDREWS 1
Appeal2014-000087
Application 12/183,361
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-7, 21-25, 27-30 and 32-36. Claims 2, 8-20, 26 and 31 have
been canceled. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-000087
Application 12/ 183 ,3 61
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to a "method for controlling energy
consumption within a building in response to sensor outputs." Spec. i-f 2.
According to the Specification, energy consumption is controlled by sensing
human occupancy of a building as well as current energy consumption
characteristics in order to predict HV AC operation requirements. Spec. i-f 8.
In a disclosed embodiment, one or more environmental and energy
consumption sensing devices are located within each room of a building in
order to control the HVAC needs of each room individually. Spec. i-fi-126,
29.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method for controlling energy consumption within a building
including a plurality of rooms, the method comprising the steps of:
providing at least one environment sensing device and at least
one energy consumption sensing device associated with the building;
collecting current data from the environment sensing device and
the energy consumption sensing device along with associated time-of-
day data;
predicting a future value of an energy consumption parameter
on a room-by-room basis based upon the collected current data, the
associated time-of-day data, and historic data collected from the
environment sensing device and the energy consumption sensing
device;
determining a profile of future costs per unit of energy
consumption as a function of time; and
controlling energy consumption on a room-by-room basis
dependent upon the predicted future energy consumption parameter
value and the determined profile of energy consumption costs.
2
Appeal2014-000087
Application 12/ 183 ,3 61
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1, 4--7, 21, 23-25, 27-30, and 33-36 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brickfield et al. (US
2005/0043862 Al; Feb. 24, 2005) ("Brickfield") and Pesko et al. (US
6,536,675 Bl; Mar. 25, 2003) ("Pesko"). Final Act. 2-11.
2. Claims 3, 22, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zick, Pesko, and Boalt (GB 2 448 896 A; Nov. 5,
2008). Final Act. 5---6, 11-12.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Brickfield
and Pesko teaches or suggests predicting a future value of an energy
consumption parameter or controlling energy consumption "on a room-by-
room basis," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Brickfield
and Pesko teaches or suggests "selecting a future time at which the rate of
energy consumption is to be changed," as recited in claim 34?
ANALYSIS 2
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
2 Throughout this opinion we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
February 7, 2013 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed September 10, 2013
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on July 11, 2013 ("Ans.");
and the Final Office Action mailed on August 1, 2012, from which this
Appeal is taken ("Final Act.").
3
Appeal2014-000087
Application 12/ 183 ,3 61
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3-14. However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1, 3-7, 21-25, 27-30, 32, 33, 35, and 36
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Pesko teaches or
suggests predicting a future value of an energy consumption parameter on a
room-by-room basis or controlling energy consumption on a room-by-room
basis, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellants argue
Pesko "is completely silent" as to predicting or controlling energy
consumption on a room-by-room basis. Id. Instead, Appellants assert that
Pesko merely discloses that each room is "well controlled" and that any
predictions of future energy requirements are done on a global or building-
wide level. Id.; see also Reply Br. 5.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Pesko teaches managing the energy consuming device by
"determining a plurality of parameters within the controlled space in order to
reduce energy waste during heating and cooling of the controlled space."
Ans. 14 (citing Pesko, col. 1, 11. 34--37). Pesko further teaches:
The controlled space can be one of a plurality of differing
independently controllable spaces. For example, the controlled
space can be a single room in a hotel wherein each such room
must be well controlled in order to avoid any periods of guest
discomfort.
4
Appeal2014-000087
Application 12/ 183 ,3 61
Pesko, col. 1, 11. 37--41 (emphases added). Thus, we find Pesko determines a
plurality of parameters on a room-by-room basis in order to reduce energy
waste. Additionally, as the Examiner explains, Pesko teaches the parameters
"are taken to predict future values as to time of day, day of month and
weather ... to forecast energy consumptions." Ans. 14 (citing Pesko, col. 1,
11. 57-66). Thus, Pesko teaches "predicting a future value of an energy
consumption parameter on a room-by-room-basis," as recited in claim 1.
Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Pesko teaches the parameters are
used to control energy consumption functions. Ans. 14 (citing Pesko, col. 1,
11. 57-66). Contrary to Appellants' assertion, the control of the energy
consumption may be based on current values as well as the predicted future
energy consumption value. Final Act. 3; see also Pesko, col. 4, 11. 11-21.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 24 and
29, which contain similar limitations. See App. Br. 12-13. Additionally, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 3-7, 21-23, 25, 27,
28, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 36, which were not argued separately. See App. Br.
11-13.
Claim 34
Claim 34 depends from claim 23 and recites "wherein the controlling
step includes selecting a future time at which the rate of energy consumption
is to be changed." Appellants contend "Brickfield is completely silent as to
running equipment based on a future price of energy, let alone selecting a
future time at which a rate of energy consumption is to be changed." App.
5
Appeal2014-000087
Application 12/ 183 ,3 61
Br. 11. Appellants argue that regarding the intelligent agents of Brickfield,
as relied upon by the Examiner, "it may be presumed that the agent[ s] use
their 'knowledgeable energy forecasts' to change only a current rate of
energy consumption." Reply Br. 5 (emphasis altered from original).
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive of Examiner error.
An obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." Id. at 421. As an initial matter, Appellants do not provide
sufficient persuasive argument or evidence in support of their presumption
that Brickfield' s energy forecasts only affect the current rate of energy
consumption. Brickfield teaches "[a ]rtificial intelligence (such as
intelligence agents) may be used to evaluate, forecast and/or control energy
consumption patterns." Brickfield i-f 11. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Brickfield teaches or suggests the intelligent agents "use their device
knowledge to make knowledgeable energy forecasts ... rather than
operating on a fixed schedule regardless of temperature forecasts or
changing energy prices." Brickfield i-f 223; see also Ans. 14. Thus, we find
Brickfield, in updating the fixed schedule, suggests "selecting a future time
at which the rate of energy consumption is to be changed," as claimed.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 34.
6
Appeal2014-000087
Application 12/ 183 ,3 61
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-7, 21-25, 27-
30 and 32-36.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
lv
7