Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2019

13449251 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/449,251 04/17/2012
22434 7590 02/25/2019
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP
P.O. BOX 70250
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen C. Brown
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.
VIEWP042US 5125
EXAMINER
LEI, JIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2019 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN C. BROWN 1
Appeal2017-004662
Application 13/449,251
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JULIA HEANEY, and SHELDON M.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 19-21
as unpatentable over Gustavsson et al. (US 2010/0172010 Al, published
July 8, 2010) ("Gustavsson") in view of Mehtani et al. (US 2012/0062975
Al, published March 15, 2012) ("Mehtani") as evidenced by Agrawal et al.
(US 6,795,226 B2, issued September 21, 2004) ("Agrawal") and claims 22-
35, 37--40, 42, 44, and 46-52 as unpatentable over these references in
1 View, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-004662
Application 13/449,251
combination with Ahmed (US 7,610, 910 B2, issued November 3, 2009).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a window controller for powering an optically-
switchable device disposed on a substantially transparent substrate
(independent claim 1) as well as a system comprising a plurality of such
controllers in combination with a network controller configured to control
this plurality (remaining independent claim 29).
A copy of claims 1 and 29, taken from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A window controller for powering an optically-
switchable device disposed on a substantially transparent
substrate, the window controller comprising:
a memory device configured to store a plurality of
power profiles, each power profile including two or more
sequential power profile portions, each power profile portion
having one or more voltage or current characteristics and a
time duration during which the respective voltage or current
characteristics of the power profile portion are applied to the
optically-switchable device, the two or more respective
power profile portions including one or more portions during
which a voltage ramp is applied to the optically-switchable
device and one or more portions during which a holding
voltage is applied to the optically- switchable device;
a command-voltage generator configured to:
receive two or more drive parameters including a
current transmissivity value of the optically-switchable
device and a target transmissivity value of the optically-
switchable device;
select a power profile from the plurality of
power profiles for powering the optically-switchable
device based on the drive parameters; and
2
Appeal2017-004662
Application 13/449,251
generate a command voltage signal based on the
selected power profile; and
a power-signal generator configured to generate a
power signal based on the command voltage signal for
applying the voltage or current characteristics of the selected
power profile to the optically-switchable device.
29. A system comprising:
a plurality of windows, each window comprising an
optically-switchable device on a substantially transparent
substrate;
a network controller configured to control a plurality
of window controllers;
a plurality of window controllers, each window
controller for powering at least one
of the plurality of windows, each window controller
compnsmg:
a memory device configured to store a plurality
of power profiles, each power profile including two or
more sequential power profile portions, each power
profile portion having one or more voltage or current
characteristics and a time duration during which the
respective voltage or current characteristics of the
power profile portion are applied to the optically-
switchable device, the two or more respective power
profile portions including one or more portions during
which a voltage ramp is applied to the respective
optically-switchable device and one or more portions
during which a holding voltage is applied to the
respective optically-switchable device;
a command-voltage generator configured to:
receive two or more drive parameters including
a current transmissivity value of the optically-
switchable device and a target transmissivity value of
the optically-switchable device;
select a power profile from the plurality of
power profiles for powering the optically-switchable
device based on the drive parameters; and
3
Appeal2017-004662
Application 13/449,251
generate a command voltage signal based on the
respective one or more voltage or current
characteristics for the selected power profile; and
a power-signal generator configured to generate a
power signal based on the command voltage signal for
applying the voltage or current characteristics of the
selected power profile to the optically-switchable device.
Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to
the dependent claims under rejection (App. Br. 19, 21 ). Therefore, the
dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims 1
and 29.
We will sustain the§ 103 rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well-stated by the Examiner
in the Non-Final Office Action (dated June 3, 2015) and the Examiner's
Answer (dated November 28, 2016) with the following comments added for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Gustavsson discloses a
window controller having each of the claimed features except for the
specific power profile portions defined by the claim (Non-Final Action 2---6)
but that Mehtani discloses controllers having such power profile portions
(e.g., multi-stage voltage profile portions) (id. at 6-7). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the window controller
of Gustavsson in view of Mehtani
for the purpose of providing ... a controller for an
electrochromic window employing a simple voltage control
algorithm to cause an optical state transition, [whereby] the
controller and associated control algorithm controls the current
to the device in a manner ensuring that the switching speed is
sufficiently fast and that the current does not exceed a value
4
Appeal2017-004662
Application 13/449,251
that would damage the device [as taught by Mehtani] (i-f [0039],
line[s] 1-5; ,r [0048], line[s] 1-5).
(Id. at 7).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's findings and conclusion are
erroneous (App. Br. 10-19). These arguments are unpersuasive for the
reasons detailed by the Examiner in the Response to Argument section of the
Answer (Ans. 4--11).
For example, Appellant argues that "the control parameters taught by
Gustavsson are not power profiles as independent claim 1 recites" (see, e.g.,
App. Br. 11 ). In response, the Examiner correctly explains that Gustavsson
teaches control parameters such as voltage pulse parameters including Yapp!,
tappl, and tpulse (Ans. 4--5 (citing Gustavsson ,r 67, Fig. 4)). Appellant's
argument does not explain with reasonable specificity why Gustavsson's
control parameters are not "power profiles" ( claim 1 ). Such an explanation
is particularly necessary here because these power profiles and control
parameters appear to be the same (e.g., both include a voltage characteristic
and a time duration). The record before us reveals no distinction between
the broadly claimed "power profiles" and the control parameters of
Gustavsson.
Appellant also argues that Gustavsson fails to disclose the claim 1
requirement of a command-voltage generator configured to receive drive
parameters including current and target transmissibility values and select a
power profile based on these drive parameters (see, e.g., App. Br. 15-16).
The Examiner convincingly rebuts this argument by pointing out that
Gustavsson expressly discloses a controller 46 (i.e., the claimed command-
voltage generator) configured to receive present (i.e., current) and target
5
Appeal2017-004662
Application 13/449,251
transmissibility values (Ans. 8-10 (citing, e.g., Gustavsson Figs. 8, 13 and
,r,r 101, 105)).
In addition, Appellant argues that Gustavsson does not teach a
command-voltage generator configured to generate a command voltage
signal or a power-signal generator configured to generate a power signal
based on the command voltage signal as required by claim 1 (see, e.g., App.
Br. 17-18). The Examiner responds by correctly explaining that
Gustavsson's controller 46 (i.e., the claimed command-voltage generator)
generates a control signal 45 (i.e., the claimed command voltage signal)
which is used by voltage source 44 (i.e., the claimed power-signal generator)
to generate a separate power signal to apply to electrochromic device 11
(Ans. 10-11 (citing, e.g., Gustavsson Figs. 5A, 8, 13 and ,r 105)).
Finally, Appellant challenges the Examiner's proposed combination
of Gustavsson with Mehtani by arguing that "there is no teaching or
suggestion of how the multi-staged voltage profiles of Mehtani could be
substituted with the control parameters of Gustavsson" (App. Br. 13) and
that "Gustavsson explicitly teaches away from such a combination with
multi-stage voltage profiles" (id.). We perceive merit in the Examiner's
point that the rejection is not based on the substitution described by
Appellant but rather is based on modifying Gustavsson's controller so as to
produce multi-stage voltage profiles ensuring a fast switching speed and a
non-damaging current as taught by Mehtani (Ans. 6-7 (see Non-Final
Action 7) ). The Examiner also points out that Gustavsson does not discredit
or criticize, and therefore does not teach away from, multi-stage voltage
6
Appeal2017-004662
Application 13/449,251
profiles of the type taught by Mehtani (id. at 6). We emphasize that
Appellant's Reply Brief does not dispute either of the Examiner's points. 2
In rejecting claim 29, the Examiner finds that the above discussed
Gustavsson-Mehtani combination does not disclose a network controller
configured to control a plurality of window controllers as claimed but that
Ahmed teaches or would have suggested such a network controller including
window control subsystems (Non-Final Action 23 (citing, e.g., Ahmed Fig.
1, col. 4, 11. 16-22)). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious "to modify the window controller of [the] Gustavsson-Mehtani
combination by the window controlling system of Ahmed for the purpose of
providing ... a window control subsystem that is operable to control the
state of a window, and to provide auxiliary heating and cooling and to
minimize undesired heating and cooling [as taught by Ahmed] (col. 10,
[lines] 13-1 7)" (id. at 23-24 ).
In contesting the rejection of claim 29, Appellant relies on the
unconvincing arguments discussed previously (App. Br. 19) and additionally
argues "there is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion in Ahmed that the
2 We observe that, in the Reply Brief, Appellant states "[t]the Examiner's
apparent position that the voltage applied by the voltage source 44 of
Gustavsson teaches the command voltage signal of claim 1 is flawed"
(Reply Br. 6). This statement misrepresents the Examiner's previously
mentioned finding that Gustavsson's controller 46 (i.e., the claimed
command-voltage generator) produces a control signal 45 (i.e., the claimed
command voltage signal), which control signal is used by voltage source 44
(i.e., the claimed power-signal generator) to generate a separate power signal
to apply to electrochromic device 11 (Ans. 11 ). This particular finding is not
challenged with any meaningful specificity in the record before us.
7
Appeal2017-004662
Application 13/449,251
WAN server 14 in any way is 'configured to control a plurality of window
controllers,' as independent claim 29 recites" (id. at 20).
The above quoted argument inaccurately represents that the Examiner
relies on Ahmed's WAN server 14 as satisfying the network controller
requirement of claim 29. In fact, the Examiner relies on the window control
subsystems of Ahmed for satisfying this claim requirement as expressly
stated in the Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Action 23-24) and
reiterated in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 11-12). Therefore, the argument
fails to reveal error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 29.
For the reasons given by the Examiner and emphasized above, we
sustain the § 103 rejections of independent claims 1 and 29 and the claims
depending therefrom.
The decision of the Examiner 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).
AFFIRMED
8