Ex Parte Grabinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2017

12890380 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017)

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.
12/890,380 09/24/2010 Cory Grabinger H0028056-1161.1508101 8224
90545 7590
HONEY WET ,T ,/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
BETSCH, REGIS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
Honeywell.USPTO@STWiplaw.com
sherry, vallabh @honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CORY GRABINGER,
ADRIENNE THOMLE, and MIROSLAV MIKULICA
Appeal 2017-000167
Application 12/890,3 801
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JRAdministrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection2 of
claims 1, 2, 5—10, 12, and 15—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention relates generally to methods for calibrating a
system sensor in an economizer controller. (Spec. 12). Claims 1 and 10 are
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. See App. Br. 3.
2 Final Office Action dated January 2, 2015.
Appeal 2017-000167
Application 12/890,380
1. A calibrating mechanism for an economizer controller
comprising:
a precision sensor of a first kind for measuring a control
parameter of an HVAC system;
and
a first system sensor of the first kind for measuring the
control parameter of an economizer controller of an HVAC
system; and
wherein:
the first system sensor is read to obtain a first value in a
first ambient environment at a first time;
the precision sensor is read to obtain a second value in
the first ambient environment at the same first time as the first
system sensor;
the first value is compared with the second value to
obtain a first offset from a difference between the first and
second values;
the first system sensor is read to obtain a third value in
the first ambient environment at a second time;
the precision sensor is read to obtain a fourth value in the
first ambient environment at the same second time as the first
system sensor;
the third value of the first system sensor is compared
with the fourth value of the precision sensor to obtain a second
offset from a difference between the third and fourth values,
wherein the first and second offsets are combined to
provide a curve of offsets versus values from the first system
sensor, which is extrapolated for obtaining offsets for other
values obtained by the first system sensor.
2
Appeal 2017-000167
Application 12/890,380
10. A method for calibrating a system sensor in an
economizer controller, comprising:
measuring a first parameter for controlling an
economizer/demand control ventilation system with a system
sensor of an economizer controller to get a first reading at each
of a plurality of ambient temperatures;
measuring the first parameter with a precision sensor to
get a second reading at each of the plurality of ambient
temperatures;
computing a plurality of offsets from a difference
between the first and second readings of the first parameter for
each of the plurality of ambient temperatures;
entering the offsets into a memory of the economizer
controller; and
using one of the computed plurality of offsets for
calibrating another reading from the system sensor of the first
parameter; and
wherein computing the offsets from the readings of the
precision sensor and the system sensor, and calibrating of a
subsequent reading of the system sensor are automatically
processed;
and
wherein each of the first and second readings are taken at
a same time for each of the plurality of ambient temperatures.
Claims Appendix to App. Br.
Appellants (see App. Br., generally) request review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
3
Appeal 2017-000167
Application 12/890,380
I. Claims 1—2, 5—8, 10, 12, and 15—24 rejected as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Allgood (US 4,933,633,
issued June 12, 1990, “Allgood”) and further in view of Kay
et al., (Texas Instruments, published 2005, “Kay”).
II. Claim 9 rejected as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Allgood, Kay, and Janu et al., (US 5,292,280,
issued Mar. 8, 1994, “Janu”).
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in
the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 3—23).
OPINION
After consideration the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we
determine that Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the subject matter recited in claims 1,2, 5—10, 12, and
15—24 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).3 Accordingly, we reverse Rejections I
and II.
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants argue neither Allgood nor
Kay alone or in combination discloses or suggests:
“a precision sensor of a first kind for measuring a control
parameter of an HVAC system,” “a first system sensor of the
first kind for measuring the control parameter of an economizer
controller of an HVAC system,” or “the precision sensor is read
to obtain a second value in the first ambient environment at the
3 Our discussion applies to independent claims 1,10, and 15.
4
Appeal 2017-000167
Application 12/890,380
same first time as the first system sensor” particularly in
combination with other claim elements.
(App. Br. 8).
Regarding independent claim 10, Appellants argue neither Allgood
nor Kay alone or in combination discloses or suggests:
“measuring a first parameter for controlling an
economizer/demand control ventilation system with a system
sensor of an economizer controller to get a first reading at each
of a plurality of ambient temperatures,” “measuring the first
parameter with a precision sensor to get a second reading at
each of the plurality of ambient temperatures,” or “wherein
each of the first and second readings are taken at a same time
for each of the plurality of ambient temperatures” particularly
in combination with other claim elements.
(App. Br. 12).
Regarding independent claim 15, Appellants argue neither Allgood
nor Kay alone or in combination discloses or suggests:
“taking a plurality of readings with a system sensor of an
economizer controller at a first set of different values of a
parameter for controlling an economizer/demand control
ventilation system,” “taking a plurality of readings with a
precision sensor at the first set of different values of the
parameter for the first set of different values,” or “wherein each
the plurality of readings with a precision sensor is taken at a
same time as a corresponding reading taken with the system
sensor” particularly in combination with other claim elements.
(App. Br. 15).
The Examiner found Allgood teaches a system that can act as an
economizer comprising a CPU for performing calibration of sensors to
achieve a high degree of measurement accuracy. (Final Act. 3—4). The
Examiner found Allgood teaches a system for calibrating remote station
5
Appeal 2017-000167
Application 12/890,380
sensors by storing known calibration readings (Final Act. 4; Allgood cols. 1—
2). The Examiner found Allgood teaches calibration of remote station
sensors at the time of installation and at periodic times thereafter utilizing
stored calibration readings. (Final Act. 4). The Examiner found Allgood is
silent concerning combining multiple offsets as required by the claimed
invention. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner found Kay teaches a sensor
calibration method that requires taking multiple measurements and utilizes
computed calibration data to remove errors. The Examiner determined that
it would have been obvious “to use the method and PGA309 of Kay to
provide point, linear or nonlinear sensor calibration in the computer
controlled energy system of Allgood.” (Final Act. 6). The Examiner further
states:
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
of the time that when using a precision sensor to calibrate
another sensor, that they would be reading as similar of a
condition as possible, thus it is obvious that this is met when
they measure the same data at the same time.
(Final Act. 6).
The Examiner relies on substantially the same findings and analysis
to address independent claims 1, 10, and 15. (Final Act. 3—6; 10-13; and
15-18).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1,10, and 15 is not well-founded. Allgood describes a
data communication system having a plurality of remote stations. The
communication system allows the central station to monitor the plurality of
remote stations. (Col. 1,11. 15—39). The Examiner has not adequately
identified where Allgood describes or suggests a first system sensor and a
6
Appeal 2017-000167
Application 12/890,380
precision sensor which are located and arranged such that the first system
sensor is read to obtain a first value in a first ambient environment at a first
time and the precision sensor is read to obtain a second value in the first
ambient environment at the same first time as the first system sensor as
required by the methods and system of the independent claims. The
Examiner has failed to adequately address Appellants’ argument that
Allgood utilizes a calibration meter as a standard to which energy
consumption can be compared and fails to disclose the first sensor and
precision sensor required by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 8—9; Ans. 7—
9). That is, the Examiner has not explained how the calibration meter
standard and the calibration meter—described in columns 55 and 57
respectively—are located so as to obtain values in a first ambient
environment at a first time as required by the claimed invention. (Ans. 8—9).
We also do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase “same
time” as presented in the Answer for the reasons given by Appellants. (Ans.
8-9; App. Br. 8).
For the reasons provided by Appellants and given above, the
Examiner has not established that the relied-upon disclosures of Allgood and
Kay are sufficient to support obviousness of independent claims 1,10, and
15. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection
based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts
must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from
the prior art”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 2, 5—10, 12, and 15—24 for the reasons presented by
Appellants and given above.
7
Appeal 2017-000167
Application 12/890,380
ORDER
The rejections of claims 1,2, 5—10, 12, and 15—24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
8