Ex Parte Abbott Donnelly et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13288304 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/288,304 11/03/2011
48915 7590 03/28/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ian Abbott Donnelly
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.
YOR920110235US 1 1055
EXAMINER
PARK,JOHNC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN ABBOTT DONNELLY, RICK A. HAMILTON
II, BRIAN M. O'CONNELL, and RALPH P. WILLIAMS 1
Appeal2017-010169
Application 13/288,304
Technology Center 2100
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
19 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010169
Application 13/288,304
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to water management model is
generated by selecting data, via a user interface implemented by a computer
processor, from options including water quality, water quantity, and water
usage. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for providing water management services, the
method comprising:
generating a water accounting model for a water source,
compnsmg:
selecting data, via a user interface implemented by a computer
processor, from options attributable to the water source
including water quality, water volume, and water usage;
defining, via the user interface, parameters of the data for a
geographic region, the parameters including acceptable levels
of additives in the water source; and
defining, via the user interface, actions to be taken when at least
one value of the parameters exceeds a corresponding defined
threshold value, the actions to be taken including initiating an
operational modification to components of a water management
system, the components configured to perform functions,
responsive to the operational modification, with respect to
containment, flow, filter, and composition of water at the
water source;
mapping communications addresses of data sources of data
selected via the user interface to the water accounting model;
receiving input values for the data via the communications
addresses from the data sources, the data sources monitoring
the water source;
executing the water accounting model with respect to the water
source; and
identifying and implementing an action responsive to results of
executing the model;
wherein the acceptable levels of additives are defined as a
function of the water usage, the water usage classified by
2
Appeal2017-010169
Application 13/288,304
domestic application, agricultural application, and ecosystem
application.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lynch
Green
us 4,830,757
WO 01/94937 Al
REJECTIONS
May 16, 1989
Dec. 13, 2001
Claims 1-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lynch in view of Green.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-6, 14, and 21
Appellants argue that Lynch does not teach or suggest the limitation
of "selecting data ... from options attributable to the water source including
water quality, water volume, and water usage" as recited in claim 1. See
App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants assert Lynch does not teach options
attributable to the water source including all three selectable data from
options: water quality, water volume, and water usage. Id. Appellants
argue, at best, Lynch teaches physical properties that include water quality
(as determined from sensors 12a and 12b) and the receipt of fresh water
from sensor 12c. Id.
We do not agree. During examination, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "Construing
3
Appeal2017-010169
Application 13/288,304
claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because
the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise
claim coverage." Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359 at 1364. An
optional limitation need not be found in the cited prior art. See In re
Johnston, 435 F.3d. 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[O]ptional elements do
not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted."). Conditional
steps employed in a method claim need not be found in the prior art if, under
the broadest reasonable construction, the method need not invoke the steps.
Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3---6 (PTAB
April 28, 2016) (concluding the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim
encompassed situations in which conditional method steps "need not be
reached") (precedential).
The disputed limitation is an optional limitation and the Examiner is
only required to apply prior art to meet one of the options. In other words,
as long as there is prior art showing selection of one of the options, the
limitation is met. The Examiner finds, and Appellants agree, that Lynch
teaches physical properties that include water quality (see Ans. 9 citing col.
4, 11. 5-10 and App. Br. 7). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that
Lynch teaches selecting these parameters remotely (Ans. 9, col. 5, 11. 25-34).
Accordingly, Lynch teaches selecting data from the option attributable to the
water source of water quality, thereby meeting the disputed limitation of
"selecting data ... from options attributable to the water source including
water quality, water volume, and water usage" as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner's cited portion of Lynch
(col. 2, 11. 13-23) does not teach the limitation of "defining, via the user
interface, parameters of the data for a geographic region, the parameters
4
Appeal2017-010169
Application 13/288,304
including acceptable levels of additives in the water source," as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 7).
We do not agree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Lynch
teaches an operator selecting/ entering parameters by setting points or ranges
for a remote location (Ans. 9 citing col. 5, 11. 25-34).
Appellants also argue that Green fails to teach the limitation of
"wherein the acceptable levels of additives are defined as a function of the
water usage, the water usage classified by domestic application, agricultural
application, and ecosystem application" as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Lynch teaches the addition of treatment chemicals as part
of monitoring the water quality for different locations (Final Act. 4 citing
col. 2, 11. 24--53). The Examiner relies on Green for the teaching of different
guidelines of acceptable water quality depending on water usage as
explained below.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the term "ecosystem
application" can be broadly but reasonably interpreted as anything related to
ecosystem including agricultural farming (Ans. 9). The claim terms should
be given their broadest reasonable meaning in their ordinary usage as such
claim terms would be understood by one skilled in the art by way of
definitions and the written description. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). We note that Appellants' Specification does not define the
terms: domestic application, agricultural application, and ecosystem
application. See Spec. The Examiner's interpretation of the term
"ecosystem application" to include agricultural farming is further supported
by the ordinary meaning of the term "agroecology," defined as "an
ecological approach to agriculture that views agricultural areas as
5
Appeal2017-010169
Application 13/288,304
ecosystems and is concerned with the ecological impact of agricultural
practices" Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition
(copyrighted 2005).
The Examiner interpreted the "domestic application" as drinkable
water; and "agricultural application" and "ecosystem application" as non-
drinkable water (Ans. 10). Green is relied upon for teaching a database that
shows acceptable levels of arsenic for different uses in drinking water (i.e.,
domestic application) and non-drinkable water (i.e., "agricultural
application" and "ecosystem application") (see Ans. 10 citing pg. 15, 11.
8-14).
Thus, the combination of Lynch and Green teaches the limitation of
"wherein the acceptable levels of additives are defined as a function of the
water usage, the water usage classified by domestic application, agricultural
application, and ecosystem application" as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner's rejections of claims 4---6, 14, and 21 not
argued separately.
Claims 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-19.
Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for claim 1 for
independent system claim 8 and computer program product claim 15 (App.
Br. 9). Appellants thus argue that Lynch does not teach or suggest the
limitation of "selecting data ... from options attributable to the water source
including water quality, water volume, and water usage" as recited in claim
1. See App. Br. 7.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having
structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition
precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should
6
Appeal2017-010169
Application 13/288,304
the condition occur. This interpretation of the system claim would differ
from the corresponding method claim 1 because the structure (i.e., a
processor programmed to perform the recited function should the recited
condition be met) is present in the system regardless of whether the
condition is met and the function is actually performed. See Ex parte
Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847 at *7.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the combination of Lynch
and Green teach a water management of a water source including water
quality that takes into account water usage. Furthermore, the Examiner finds
that Lynch teaches that the chemical property adjustment may include
bleeding water from the system and replacing it with fresh water (i.e. water
volume) (see Final Act. 4 citing col. 2, 11. 24--53; also see Fig. 3A, element
164, "READ PUMPED VOLUME" and element 174, "READ VOLUME
BLEAD"). Also, the cited by Examiner section of Lynch teaches a water
meter 12c for measuring receipt of water and states that
the water quality is controlled by a bleed valve 22a for bleeding
water from the system, an acid pump 22b and a caustic pump 22c
for adjusting the pH, water treatment chemical pumps 22d,
biocide pumps 22e for adding chemicals to kill organisms in the
water, and the like. A flow switch 22f monitors whether fresh
water is being added.
Final Act. 3--4, citing col. 4, 11. 11-56 for meeting the disputed
limitation. Thus, the combination of Lynch and Green teach the
options of selecting data including water quality, water volume, and
water usage.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claim 8 and
claim 15, and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 11-13 and
18-19.
7
Appeal2017-010169
Application 13/288,304
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19, and 21 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8