Ex Parte MccoyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201612326999 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/326,999 12/03/2008 173 7590 05/27/2016 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 NORTH M63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR RICHARD A. MCCOY 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. US20040350 4448 EXAMINER LIN, SHERMAN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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): whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com mike_lafrenz@whirlpool.com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD A. McCOY1 Appeal2014-001277 Application 12/326,999 Technology Center 2400 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-30, all of the pending claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is Whirlpool Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-001277 Application 12/326,999 BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to a messaging architecture for conveying information by electronic messages between a producer of a resource, such as a utility, and a consumer of the resource, such as an appliance. Using the information conveyed by the electronic messages, the appliance can participate in effective management of the resource, such as making predictions about future resource consumption and/or other determinations about resource consumption that could be used to increase the efficiency of the appliance. Spec. i-fi-f l---6. Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A messaging architecture stored in a non-transitory storage medium for conveying information by electronic messages between a producer of a resource and a consumer of the resource, wherein the messaging architecture comprises messages, singly or in combination, having: a first portion representing at least one resource profile, each resource profile having an ordered collection of points wherein each point represents a coordinate pair of variables related to at least one of time, cost, and amount regarding use of the resource; first and second identifiers representing parameters of the resource and associated with values of each coordinate pair; and a second portion representing a function identifier that designates a context of the resource profile; whereby the first and second portions provide enough information in the messages to effectively manage the resource. 2 Appeal2014-001277 Application 12/326,999 REJECTIONS Claims 1-23 and 25-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ehlers et al. (US 2004/0138981 Al; published July 15, 2004) ("Ehlers") in view of Brown, Jr. (US 5,544,036; Aug. 6, 1996) ("Brown"). Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ehlers in view of Brown and Hardaway et al. (US 2003/0208852 Al; published Nov. 13, 2003) ("Hardaway"). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action, and the arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner's Answer. We agree with Appellant's arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis below. The Examiner finds that Ehlers discloses a messaging architecture compris[ing] messages, singly or in combination, having[] a first portion representing at least one resource profile, each resource profile having an ordered collection of points wherein each point represents a coordinated pair of variables ... [and] first and second identifiers representing parameters of the resource associated with values of each coordinate pair, as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Ehlers i-fi-163, 331, Fig. 4M); Ans. 18-19 (citing Ehlers i-fi-163, 174, 331, Fig. 4M). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Ehlers' description of information related to instantaneous power being delivered and the accumulated power being delivered to the utility via a gateway control node suggests measuring usage of a resource and transferring the information in a message to a back-end server and also provided to a user graphical user interface for reporting the 3 Appeal2014-001277 Application 12/326,999 usage of the resource over time in a graph. See Final Act. 3--4 (citing Ehlers i-f 63). The Examiner further finds Ehlers' description of allowing the customer to display electrical usage information on a monthly or yearly basis suggests at least an ordered collection of points representing a coordinate pair. See id. at.4 (citing Ehlers i-f 331 ). The Examiner explains that because the cited graphs (e.g., Fig. 4M) present resource usage information on a plotted graph over time, the cited prior art suggests a resource profile with a coordinate pair of variables. See id. The Examiner still further finds Ehlers' Figures lB and 4M suggest that measurements from metered devices are at least communicated to the back-end server and then provided to the user. See id. Lastly the Examiner explains "[i]nherently, the information is sent in messages, singly or combined, to reasonably suggest that the coordinate data of resource usage vs[.] time is effectively communicated at least from a meter to the back-end server and finally to the customer device for viewing the information." See id. Appellant argues Ehlers does not describe or suggest the structure or architecture of the messages that deliver the transmitted data. See App. Br. 5. Appellant asserts that Ehlers' data plots that are displayed on a report screen derive data from a variety of sources over the system, and the data is not transmitted according to a well-defined message architecture. See id. (citing Ehlers i-fi-1212, 311, 312, 330 and Fig. 4M). More specifically, Appellant asserts that the message architecture of Appellant's invention has a packet structure comprising predefined bytes for a resource profile and for xy pairs. See id. Appellant further argues it is error to assume that Ehlers discloses such a message architecture by its end-user plot in a display. See id. at 6. 4 Appeal2014-001277 Application 12/326,999 We agree with Appellant's arguments because the Examiner does not direct us to evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Ehlers teaches or suggests a messaging architecture comprising a message or combination of messages having a first portion representing at least one resource profile having an ordered collection of points wherein each point represents a coordinated pair of variables, corresponding to Appellant's claim 1. See Ehlers i-fi-163, 81, 174, 331, Figs. lB, 4M. Much of the Examiner's position relies on Ehlers' end-user plot illustrating energy consumption over time that is displayed in a graphical user interface. See Ehlers Fig. 4M, i-fi-1 42, 331. Figure 4M of Ehlers merely describes a displayed report screen without specifying the details of the data contained in any single message or combination of messages that may be used to generate the report screen (i.e., a single message or combination of messages having a first portion having an ordered collection of points wherein each point represents a coordinate pair of variables). See id. The remaining citations to Ehlers relied upon by the Examiner also do not specify the details of the data contained in any single message or combination of messages that may be used to generate the report screen. See Ehlers i-fi-163, 81, 174, Fig. lB. Thus, the Examiner's findings are insufficient to demonstrate that Ehlers teaches or suggests a messaging architecture comprising a single message or combination of messages having a first portion having an ordered collection of points, wherein each point represents a coordinate pair of variables. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Brown do not remedy the deficiencies of Ehlers. See Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 6-7, 19-22. For these reasons, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 and 25-30 as being unpatentable over 5 Appeal2014-001277 Application 12/326,999 Ehlers and Brown. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Hardaway do not remedy the deficiencies of Ehlers and Brown. See Final Act. 16; Ans. 17. Therefore, for the same reasons as claim 1, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 24 and being unpatentable over Ehlers, Brown, and Hardaway. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-30. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation