Ex Parte Casilli

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2018

13890797 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018)

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.
13/890,797 05/09/2013 Chris Casilli 2013P03138US 2536
28524 7590 02/14/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
HABIB, ASIFA
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2887
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS CASILLI1
Appeal 2017-005078
Application 13/890,797
Technology Center 2800
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8 through 12, and 14 through 25.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of using a mobile computing
device to communicate with a building automation system. Abstract and
paragraphs 12 through 14 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Siemens Industry Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-005078
Application 13/890,797
1. A device for modification of at least one parameter
associated with a building automation system, comprising:
an input device;
a memory;
a display;
a processor coupled to the memory and the display;
a plurality of environmental parameters where at
least one environmental parameter of the plurality of
environmental parameters is associated with a graphical
user interface displayable upon the display, where the at
least one environmental parameter is modified by the
graphical user interface via the input device; and
a code generated by the processor that encodes at
least one of the plurality of environmental parameters in a
machine perceivable code that is displayable and where at
least one of the environmental parameters is associated
with an energy efficiency visual feedback indicator that is
displayed in the display.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, 9 through 12, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Seem (US 2008/0277486 Al,
Nov. 13, 2008), James (US 2012/0130924 Al, May 24, 2012), and
Fukasawa (US 2005/0011958 Al, Jan. 20, 2005). Final Act. 3-8.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 16, 17, 19 through 22, 24, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Seem and Fukasawa. Final
Act. 8-11.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed November 21,
2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief filed February 6, 2017 (Reply Br.); the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 12, 2017 (“Answer”); the Final Office
Action, mailed May 5, 2016 (“Final Act.”); and Appellant’s Specification
filed May 9, 2013.
2
Appeal 2017-005078
Application 13/890,797
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Seem, James, Fukasawa, and Fadell (US 2014/0316581
Al, Oct. 23, 2014). Final Act. 11.
The Examiner has rejected claims 18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Seem, Fukasawa, and Fadell. Final Act. 11-12.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 6, 8 through 12, and 14 through
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 through 6, 9 through 12, and
15 based upon Seem, James, and Fukasawa, Appellant argues that none of
the cited references teach an energy efficiency visual feedback indicator.
App. Br. 8. Appellant argues that Seem teaches an indication of
temperature, which is not an indication of efficiency. App. Br. 8-9; Reply
Br. 4. Further, Appellant argues that James teaches forecasting energy usage
and not providing information on what is actually occurring as claimed.
App. Br. 9.
The Examiner provides a detailed response identifying that the
Specification does not define, nor use the term energy efficiency, does not
describe how to calculate energy efficiency, and that the Specification
merely describes the conservation indicator (claimed energy efficiency
indicator) as something that changes color based upon user input of a
temperature set point. Answer 2-3. The Examiner thus finds that
3
Appeal 2017-005078
Application 13/890,797
Fukasawa’s teaching of a display of the temperature set point meets the
claimed energy efficiency visual feedback indicator. Answer 3—4. Further,
the Examiner finds that James display of energy usage also meets claimed
energy efficiency visual feedback. App. Br. 4.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 6, 9 through 12, and 15. Claim 1, which we
select as representative, recites displaying an energy efficiency visual
feedback indicator that is associated with an environmental parameter. As
discussed by the Examiner, Appellant’s Specification does not define the
energy efficiency parameter or how the energy efficiency is calculated. We
construe the term broadly and consider James’ teaching of an indication of
energy usage and costs in response to changing temperature settings to meet
the claimed energy efficiency visual feedback indicator, as it is
representative of the energy used based upon the setting. See James,
paragraphs 74 and 75. Appellant’s argument that James does not provide
information of what is actual occurring, is not convincing as we do not find
that the claim is limited in this manner. Because we concur with the
Examiner that James teaches the claimed energy efficiency, we do not reach
the Examiner’s alternative finding that Seem also teaches the energy
efficiency indicator. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of representative claim 1 or claims 2 through 6, 9 through 12, and
15.
With regard to claims 16, 17, 19 through 22, 24, and 25, Appellant
states, “Claims 16-17, 19-22, and 24-25 depend from allowable independent
claims and are in condition for allowance.” App. Br. 9. We are not
persuaded of error by these arguments. Initially, we note that claims 16 and
4
Appeal 2017-005078
Application 13/890,797
21 are independent (not dependent as argued by Appellant) and the
remainder of the claims discussed depend upon claims 16 or 21. Further,
independent claim 16, which we select as representative, does not recite an
energy efficiency indicator. As such, Appellant’s arguments discussed
above with respect to claim 1 are not applicable. Thus, Appellant has not
identified an error in the rejection of representative claim 16 and we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17, 19 through 22, 24, and 25.
With respect to the rejections of claims 8, 14, 18, and 23, Appellant
does not provide separate arguments for their patentability, nor does
Appellant list these rejections (see App. Br. 7) as rejections to be reviewed
on appeal. We summarily affirm these rejections.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 6, 8 through
12, and 14 through 25 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)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5