Ex Parte Hampapur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13446701 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
13/446,701 04/13/2012 Arun Hampapur YOR920110322US1
(27606)
2686
48233 7590 02/01/2018
srntt y smTT mttrphy&prfssfr pt EXAMINER
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
NGUYEN, AN T
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
IBMPAIREN otify @ ssmp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARUN HAMPAPUR, ZHONG BO JIANG,
HONGFEI LI, and SHILPAN. MAHATMA
Appeal 2017-008089
Application 13/446,7011
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3—11, 13—19, and 21—27, which are all the claims pending in this
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 12, and 20 were canceled by Amendments filed October 29,
2014 and January 22, 2016.
Appeal 2017-008089
Application 13/446,701
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to using data analysis to detect
anomalies in utility meters. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of detecting anomalies in a metering system
comprising a multitude of meters used to measure usage of a
defined commodity, the method comprising:
using a communications device for collecting data from
the meters, including data representing usage of the defined
commodity;
selecting a group of the meters for inspection;
analyzing the data collected from the group of meters
selected for inspection over a given time period to identify any
of the meters showing at least one of a defined group of
anomalous malfunctioning usage patterns;
for each of the meters selected for inspection and showing
one of the anomalous malfunctioning usage patterns,
determining an anomaly score for the usage pattern shown by the
meter; and
using the anomaly scores to rank the meters selected for
inspection and showing the anomalous malfunctioning usage
patterns to provide examination priorities for inspecting the
meters.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 4—7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23—25, and 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sfaelos
2
Appeal 2017-008089
Application 13/446,701
(US 2013/0066570 Al; Mar. 14, 2013) and Giat (US 2012/0109716 Al;
May 3, 2012).
Claims 3, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sfaelos, Giat, and Peleg (US 2011/0215945 Al; Sept. 8,
2011).
Claims 8, 9, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sfaelos, Giat, and Seem (US 2003/0101009 Al;
May 29, 2003).
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sfaelos, Giat, and Angelis (US 2007/0247331 Al; Oct.
25, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend neither Sfaelos nor Giat discloses identifying
meters in a metering system that have anomalous malfunctioning usage
patterns, and ranking the meters to prioritize inspection of the meters, as
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellants also
contend the Examiner relies on improper hindsight reasoning in concluding
it would have been obvious to modify Sfaelos in view of Giat. See App. Br.
20-21; Reply Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellants argue “[t]he Sfaelos method
is not looking for malfunctioning meters, but is looking for bellwether
meters that can be monitored to provide an overall reading of the entire
power grid. There is no reason to modify this method to prioritize meters for
inspection based on malfunctioning patterns of any meters.” App. Br. 20—
21.
3
Appeal 2017-008089
Application 13/446,701
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Sfaelos
discloses a process of selecting “bellwether” meters in a smart grid system
by determining any anomalies associated with each meter in a pool of meters
and assigning a weight to the anomalies. Sfaelos 124. The meters are
ranked based on the weighted anomalies, and meters with the highest
weights are selected as bellwether meters. Id. “[T]he utility can assign the
bellwether meters a high priority into which the utility can tap to make
readings in order to check on the overall health of the area that the
bellwether meter represents.” Sfaelos 117.
Giat discloses a process for analyzing utility consumption in meters of
an Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) system. Giat, Abstract; H 1—3. A
consumption level for each meter is compared with the consumption level of
a reference group to determine whether the meter’s current consumption
level is anomalous, for example, because it is abnormally high or low, where
anomalous consumption may be due to malicious intervention with the
meter. See Giat H 14—15. Giat discloses sending notifications to clients
that have meters associated with anomalous consumption in a prioritized
fashion, and sending notifications to “a maintenance crew, technician or the
like, which will inspect and optionally stop any resource wastage.” Giat
115; see also 58—62.
We find Giat’s determination of anomalous consumption in utility
meters meets the claim 1 limitation of “identifying] any of the meters
showing at least one of a defined group of anomalous malfunctioning usage
patterns.” That is, as mentioned above, Giat discloses malicious intervention
as one cause of anomalous consumption readings from a meter (Giat 114),
and we find malicious intervention is encompassed by the claimed
4
Appeal 2017-008089
Application 13/446,701
“malfunctioning usage patterns.” For example, Giat describes “a magnet
may be utilized to slow down mechanical elements of the metering device,
such as a rotor,” and further notes “some of the interventions with the
meter’s operation may reduce the readings by an amount, such as for
example 90%.” Giat 121. Artificially slowing down the mechanical
elements of a utility meter represents a malfunction with respect to how the
meter is intended to operate. Therefore, Giat teaches an abnormally low
consumption level is representative of a “malfunctioning usage pattern.”
Further, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious to combine Giat with Sfaelos. Final Act. 4. In view of Giat,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not only select
bellwether meters to measure overall health of a smart grid in Sfaelos, but to
also check whether the identified anomalies used to select bellwether meters
are based on malfunctioning meters and to prioritize such meters for
inspection. The Examiner finds Giat provides the motivation to combine
Giat with Sfaelos—i.e., to prevent resource wastage. Final Act. 4; Giat 115.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated motivation to combine the references
because using a malfunctioning meter as a bellwether meter in Sfaelos
would provide an inaccurate picture of the overall health of the smart grid
and could lead to resource wastage.
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has improperly relied on
hindsight (App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 6—7) is not persuasive. “Any judgement
on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon
hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge
which was within the level of ordinary skill. . . such a reconstruction is
proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, we
5
Appeal 2017-008089
Application 13/446,701
sustain the Examiner’s rejection based on explicit findings from the cited
references as detailed above. However, we note that “it can be important to
identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant field to combine the elements” of the references. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this case, the Examiner has
provided such a reason to combine Giat’s prioritized inspection of
malfunctioning meters with Sfaelos—to prevent resource wastage. Final
Act. 4; Giat 115. Appellants argue there would have been no reason to
modify Sfaelos in view of Giat (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 7), but
Appellants have not specifically explained why the Examiner’s stated reason
is insufficient.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims
3—11, 13—19, and 21—27, not specifically argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—11, 13—19,
and 21—27.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6