Ex Parte CHEN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2018

14023409 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/023,409
7590
Hongxia Chen
6 Pleasant View Ter.
Palmyra, VA 22963
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
09/10/2013 HONGXIA CHEN
07/23/2018
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.
011666.000lUS 7636
EXAMINER
LOPEZ ALVAREZ, OLVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2018 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 HONGXIA CHEN
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 3 8---60, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention "relates generally to the
field of electric power management, and more specifically, to systems and
methods for automatically managing and controlling local electric systems."
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
Spec. ,r 1. 1 The Specification explains that an "automatic local electric
management system ... includes an intelligent service panel, numerous
smart connectors, and system operation software," and the "intelligent
service panel comprises microcontrollers, program controlled circuit
breakers, sensors, and various interface and control circuits." Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
38. An intelligent service panel for monitoring and
controlling a local electric system, the panel comprising:
a program controlled circuit breaker panel comprising:
a main switch that electrically connects the panel to a
main incoming power line, the main switch configured to
selectively open and close to respectively disconnect and
connect the panel from the incoming power line;
a main power line sensor for monitoring if the main
incoming power line is receiving power;
a main bus sensor for monitoring the local electric
system; and
an array of program controlled circuit breakers (PCCB)
each connected to a corresponding electric branch line to
distribute electric power from the main incoming power line to
the corresponding electric branch lines as desired, each PCCB
including a current sensor and an AC switch;
a central control unit that controls the main switch and
the array of PCCBs based on signals received from the main
power line sensor, the main bus sensor, and the current sensors
of the PCCBs; and
1 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed September 10, 2013; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed December 7, 2016; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
July 31, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed September 7,
2017; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed October 18, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
a connector that provides direct communication by direct
electronic signal connection between the central control unit
and the program controlled circuit breaker panel, such that the
signals from the main power line sensor, the main bus sensor,
and the current sensors of the PCCBs are transmitted directly
through the connector.
App. Br. Claims App. 1.
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections
Graff et al. ("Graff') US 2004/0196003 Al
Rodgers et al. ("Rodgers") US 2007/0010916 A 1
Kates US 2007 /0299562 Al
Huang US 2010/0152912 Al
El-Essawy et al. ("El-Essawy") US 2012/0195355 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Oct. 7, 2004
Jan. 11, 2007
Dec. 27, 2007
June 17, 2010
Aug.2,2012
Claims 38, 39, 42, 44--55, and 57---60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as anticipated by Rodgers. Final Act. 7-35.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Rodgers and Graff or El-Essawy. Final Act. 36-38.
Claims 41 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Rodgers and Huang. Final Act. 38--42.
Claim 56 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Rodgers and Kates. Final Act. 42--44.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 38-60 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellant's assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action
3
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
(Final Act. 3--44) and Answer (Ans. 2--44). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 38, 39, 42, 44-55, and 57-60
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 38 AND 58
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 38 and 58 because Rodgers does not disclose "a connector that
provides direct communication by direct electronic signal connection
between the central control unit and the program controlled circuit breaker
panel, such that the signals from the main power line sensor, the main bus
sensor, and the current sensors of the PCCBs are transmitted directly
through the connector," as recited in claim 3 8 and similarly recited in
claim 58. App. Br. 3-6; Reply Br. 1--4. More specifically, Appellant asserts
that in Rodgers "signals are not transmitted 'directly' between" web
server/controller 302 ( corresponding to the claimed "central control unit")
and components in power distribution control panel 120 ( corresponding to
the claimed "program controlled circuit breaker panel"). App. Br. 4; see
Final Act. 7-12; Ans. 3-8. Appellant also asserts that the "central control
unit" sends signals to and receives information from components in the
"program controlled circuit breaker panel" via a connector "directly without
any protocol, modem, PLC [power line communication], or other
communication interface." App. Br. 5; see Reply Br. 2--4. Appellant
contends that "[ n Jo where within Rodgers ... is there any teaching other than
PLC messaging." App. Br. 6.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Contrary to Appellant's contention, the Examiner finds that Rodgers
discloses web server/controller 302 using PLC communications in some
embodiments and other communication schemes in other embodiments, such
4
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
as Ethernet, RS-232, and RS-485. Final Act. 6, 12-13; Ans. 8, 40, 42--43;
see Rodgers ,r,r 7-8, 23, 30, 34, 44, 60, Figs. 4--5. For example, Rodgers
explains that "in an embodiment employing an Ethernet communication
scheme," a PLC modem "can be replaced by a conventional Ethernet
controller." Rodgers ,r 60. Appellant has not demonstrated error in the
Examiner's finding.
In addition, the Examiner determines that the term "connector"
encompasses a "single cable," a "plurality of cables," and a "bus with a
plurality of parallel cables." Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that:
(1) Ethernet, RS-232, and RS-485 communications employ "a cable that
allows a direct connection between two devices and does not take a greater
amount of time to send a message" than the claimed invention; and
(2) Ethernet, RS-232, and RS-485 cables "are examples of a connector"
according to claims 38 and 58. Ans. 40.
Moreover, a Microsoft dictionary defines "ethernet" as "[a] widely
used local area network system developed by Xerox in 197 6, from which the
IEEE 802.3 standard was developed." Microsoft Computer Dictionary 198
(5th ed. 2002). An IEEE dictionary defines "RS-232" (alternatively
"EIA/TIA-232") as "[a]n EIA [Electronic Industries Association] standard
for asynchronous serial data communications between terminal devices, such
as printers; computers; and communications equipment, such as modems."
The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms 994 (7th ed. 2000);
see id. at 357. That IEEE dictionary explains that "[t]his standard defines a
25-pin connector and certain signal characteristics for interfacing computer
equipment." Id. at 994.
Rodgers discloses a "network cable" for communications between
web server/controller 302 and components in power distribution control
5
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
panel 120. Rodgers ,r 23, Figs. 4--5. In an embodiment that employs
Ethernet, RS-232, or RS-485 communications, that "network cable"
constitutes "a connector that provides direct communication by direct
electronic signal connection between" web server/controller 302 and
components in power distribution control panel 120. See Final Act. 3, 5-7,
12-13; Ans. 8, 40-41, 42--43; see also Rodgers ,r,r 7-8, 23, 30, 34, 44, 60,
Figs. 4--5.
Appellant argues that "[ t ]here are several figures and paragraphs in
the specification that illustrate and describe how the central control unit
exchanges information with the main switch, main sensors, and PCCBs."
App. Br. 5. Citing Application Figures 4--8, Appellant asserts that a
"program controlled circuit breaker (PCCB)" according to the invention
"does not include a communication interface and controller." Reply Br. 2.
In addition, Appellant contends that "[ c ]onnector 2026 comprises socket
2026a and head 2026b," and the "central control unit" sends signals to and
receives information from components on circuit boards 1016 and 1017 "via
connector 2026 directly without any protocol, modem, PLC, or other
communication interface." App. Br. 5. Appellant also contends that "[t]here
is no figure or sentence in my patent application indicating that there might
be a modem or communication interface between the Central Control Unit
and connector 2026, or that there might be a modem or communication
interface between the PCCBP and connector 2026." Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from
the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see Ans. 42 (citing In re Van Geuns).
6
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 1350 (CCP A 1982).
To establish patentability here, Appellant attempts to import
limitations from the Specification into the "connector" limitations in
claims 38 and 58. Although Specification paragraph 72 states that
"[c]onnector 2026 comprises socket 2026a and head 2026b," and Figure 10
shows socket 2026a and head 2026b, Figure 3 uses a generic double-headed
arrow to depict the connector between the "central control unit" and the
"program controlled circuit breaker panel." Spec. ,r 72, Figs. 3, 10. Further,
Figures 4 and 15 use a generic rectangle to depict connector 2026. Id.
Figs. 4, 15. An excerpt from Figure 15 is reproduced below:
Spec. Fig. 15. The excerpt above illustrates connector 2026 with a plurality
of input lines and a plurality of output lines, e.g., lines connected to PCCBs
2021, sensors 2022, the central control unit, and the interface unit.
In addition, the Specification explains that the "following detailed
description is merely exemplary in nature and is not intended to limit the
described embodiments .... " Spec. ,r 51. The Specification also explains
that the "specific devices and processes illustrated in the attached drawings
7
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
... are simply exemplary embodiments of the inventive concepts defined in"
the claims, and "specific dimensions and other physical characteristics
relating to the embodiments disclosed herein are not to be considered as
limiting" unless expressly stated in the claims. Id.
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). The broadest-reasonable-interpretation rule recognizes that
"claims are readily amended as part of the examination process." Burlington
Indus., Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The rule
"serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally
allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified." In re Yamamoto,
740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the Examiner's determination
that the term "connector" encompasses a "single cable," a "plurality of
cables," and a "bus with a plurality of parallel cables" comports with the
Specification. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 40; see also Spec. ,r,r 63, 72, Figs. 3--4,
10, 15.
Appellant contends that Ethernet, RS-232, and RS-485
communications require "control commands [that] are transmitted as a
message package," and the "message package needs to be processed and
converted to real control signals at the receiving end." Reply Br. 4. Based
on those contentions, Appellant asserts that Ethernet, RS-232, and RS-485
communications are "indirect." Id. ( emphasis omitted). Appellant similarly
asserts that "[ s ]ignals from a sensor never directly connect to" an Ethernet,
RS-232, or RS-485 cable. App. Br. 5; see Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Claims 38 and 58 use the transitional term "comprising" and, therefore,
8
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
"do[] not exclude unrecited elements." See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v.
Merus N. V., 864 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure§ 2111.03). Consequently, claims 38 and 58 do not
exclude interfacing and signal-processing circuits for Ethernet, RS-232, and
RS-485 communications. Consistent with this, Application Figure 5 shows
control circuit 5021e interfacing between switch 5021a and the CTRL signal
for PCCB 5021 received from the "central control unit." Spec. ,r 67, Fig. 5;
see Ans. 41 ( citing Spec. Fig. 5).
Appellant argues that Application Figure 4 shows that the "central
control unit" controls main switch 2024 with an "electronic signal," i.e., a
"logic electronic signal" from logic gate 2027 connected to connector 2026.
Id. Appellant also argues that Figure 5 shows that the CTRL signal for
PCCB 5021 received from the "central control unit" is a "logic electronic
signal," e.g., either "high" or "low." Id. at 2, 4; see App. Br. 4.
Appellant's arguments do not distinguish claims 38 and 58 over
Rodgers because the claims do not limit the "signals" transmitted directly
through the connector to only "logic electronic signals." Claim 58 broadly
encompasses any "signals" that "are transmitted directly through the
connector," while claim 3 8 restricts the "signals" that "are transmitted
directly through the connector" to "electronic" signals. App. Br. Claims
App. 1, 4--5. The signals that are transmitted directly through an Ethernet,
RS-232, or RS-485 cable are "electronic" signals and satisfy the
requirements in claims 38 and 58. In addition, we note that signals from
sensors that measure voltage and current levels are not "logic electronic
signals" and not even digital signals unless processed through an analog-to-
digital converter. See Spec. ,r,r 67-69, Figs. 5-7.
9
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
Because Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 38 and 58 as anticipated by Rodgers, we
sustain the § 102(b) rejection of these independent claims.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 39, 42, 44--55, 57, 59, AND 60
Claims 39, 42, 44--55, and 57 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 3 8, while claims 59 and 60 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 58. Appellant does not argue patentability separately for these
dependent claims. App. Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 1-5. Because Appellant does
not argue the claims separately, we sustain the § 102(b) rejection of these
dependent claims for the same reasons as the independent claims. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 40, 41, 43, and 56
Claims 40, 41, 43, and 56 depend directly or indirectly from claim 38.
Appellant does not argue patentability separately for these dependent claims.
App. Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 1-5. Because Appellant does not argue the claims
separately, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of these dependent claims for
the same reasons as the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 38, 39, 42, 44--55,
and 57---60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 40, 41, 43, and 56
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal2018-000696
Application 14/023 ,409
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. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
11