Ex Parte Hyde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

12290631 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/290,631 10/30/2008
44765 7590 03/08/2016
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES - ISF
ATTN: DOCKETING, ISF
3150 - 139th Ave SE
Bldg.4
Bellevue, WA 98005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roderick A. Hyde
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.
0507-006-001-C00003 2338
EXAMINER
BETSCH, REGIS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 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):
ISFDocketlnbox@intven.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL
BOARD
Ex parte RODERICK A. HYDE, JORDIN T. KARE, and
LOWELL L. WOOD JR.
Appeal2014-002199
Application 12/290,631
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 168-217. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 168 is representative of the claimed invention (emphasis
added):
168. A system comprising:
a measurement device operatively coupled to an
electrical circuit having an electrical appliance electrically
1 The real party in interest is stated to be Searete LLC, an affiliate of
Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC (App. Br. 4).
Appeal2014-002199
Application 12/290,631
connected thereto and conj1gured to measure, at first and
second times, first and second electrical power signals of the
electrical circuit having the electrical appliance electrically
connected thereto; and
a data processing system including:
a frequency analyzer configured to frequency
analyze the measured first and second electrical power signals
of the electrical circuit, measured at first and second times,
respectively, by the measurement device;
a first data processing component configured to
compute components of first and second electrical load
characteristics from the frequency analyzed measured first and
second electrical power signals of the electrical circuit,
respectively; and
a second data processing component configured to
identifY at least one change in operational state of the electrical
appliance electrically connected to the electrical circuit based
upon a difference in the components of the first and second
electrical load characteristics.
At the outset, we note the Examiner rejected a majority of the claims
on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double-patenting over the
claims of co-pending Application Serial Nos. 12/290,681 2 (Appeal No.
2014-002204), 12/290,672 (abandoned after filing of Notice of Appeal),
12/290,682 (Appeal No. 2014-002251)3 (Final Rej. 6-8). Appellants do not
present any arguments traversing these double-patenting rejections (App.
2 It appears that the Examiner mistakenly wrote 12/290,633, rather than
12/290,681, in the double-patenting rejection over 12/290,681 (Final Rej. 6-
7).
3 Each co-pending application under appeal has been identified as a related
appeal (App. Br. 4).
2
Appeal2014-002199
Application 12/290,631
Br. generally). Accordingly, the rejections over the currently co-pending
applications are summarily affirmed.
The Examiner also maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1) Claims 168-179, 183-187, 189-204, 208-212, and 214--217 as
unpatentable over Onoda et al., US Pre-Grant Publication
2003/0093390 Al, published May 15, 2003 (hereinafter
"Onoda"), in view of Miller, US Pre-Grant Publication
2006/0276938 Al, published Dec. 7, 2006 (hereinafter
"Miller"), and Oswald et al., US Pre-Grant Publication
2005/0171645 Al, published Aug. 4, 2005 (hereinafter
"Oswald");
2) Claims 180-182, 188, 205-207, and 213 as unpatentable over
the combination of Onoda, Miller and Oswald and further in
view of Hart et al., US 4,858,141, patented Aug. 15, 1989
(hereinafter "Hart").
Appellants focus their argument on independent claim 168, and rely
upon similar arguments for independent claim 193 (App. Br. 32-34).
Appellants also present the arguments for the dependent claims, including
those separately rejected with Hart (id. at 34--39). Thus, all of the claims
stand or fall together.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
3
Appeal2014-002199
Application 12/290,631
record supports the Examiner's conclusion that Appellants' claims are
unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the Answer.
We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue that the Examiner did not establish a prima facie
case of obviousness because the first and second electrical load
characteristics, which are computed from the first and second electrical
power signals, must result from the signal obtained by measuring with "a
measurement device operatively coupled to an electrical circuit having an
electrical appliance electrically connected thereto and configured to
measure, at first and second times, first and second electrical power signals
of the electrical circuit having the electrical appliance electrically connected
thereto" as recited in claims 168 and 193 (App. Br. 32-33, Reply Br. 4--5).
According to Appellants, the combination of prior art references cited
by the Examiner measures a power signal at a first time with the circuit in
Figure 2 of Onoda and makes a model to detect an abnormality4, (App. Br.
33-34, Reply Br. 5-7). Measurements are then made a second time, with
the second measurements being analyzed and compared against the model,
rather than directly against the first measurement's frequency analyzed
electrical signal (App. Br. 33-34, Reply Br. 5-7). Appellants state that the
cited prior art does not disclose that the first signal measured at the first time
is compared to the second signal measured at the second time to identify a
4 Appellants do not direct any arguments specific to the modification of
Onoda with Miller.
4
Appeal2014-002199
Application 12/290,631
change in operational state of the appliance because the first signal is
converted into the model (App. Br. 33-34, Reply Br. 5-7).
In Appellants' Reply Brief, they argue that the model of Onoda is no
longer the same signal that was measured at the first time because the signal
has been processed and changed into the model, which is not the same signal
(Reply. Br. 5-6). Appellants also state that that the model of the
combination of applied references is now the model taught by Oswald
because the model of Onoda is created using a different circuit, and because
Oswald discloses storing the appliance measurements in a database, which is
different from comparing measurements of the same signal (id. at 5-7).
Therefore, the cited prior art does not disclose a data processing component
that identifies at least one change in operational state of the electrical
appliance connected to the electrical circuit based on a difference in the
components of the first and second load characteristics, which are computed
from the first and second electrical power signals (App. Br. 34, 38-39,
Reply Br. 7-8).
It is axiomatic that "the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification . . . . Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "[A]s applicants may amend claims
to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee." Id.
Appellants have not sufficiently pointed out any error in the
Examiner's claim interpretation. Giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that
5
Appeal2014-002199
Application 12/290,631
the independent claims require that first and second measurements be taken
and that the same equipment makes both measurements, but do not require
any specific order or timing\(Ans. 12-13, 17-18). Then, the claims require
that a data processing component identifies a change in operational state of
the appliance based on a difference in the components of the first and second
electrical load characteristics, which are computed based on the first and
second electrical power signals of the circuit (id. at 12-13, 17-20). Contrary
to Appellants' position, the claim language does not preclude the first signal
and its load characteristics being used as part of a model. Nor have
Appellants pointed to any special definition in the Specification that would
establish that the claim language precludes the use of a model.
The Examiner's obviousness determination is based on Onoda
disclosing taking power measurements at first and second times and using
the first measurement to build a model, so any comparison of a later
measurement to the model is a comparison of the first and second
measurements (id. at 12-13, 17-18). Even though the model is used, the
measurements are still indicative of the power signals and load
characteristics and are compared to identify a change in operational state of
the appliance (id. at 12-13, 17-18). Miller discloses using the model to
create a baseline energy measurement of the monitored appliance based on
the first measurement in Onoda' s training process, and Oswald teaches that
the same sensor in Onoda can perform both the first and second
measurements (id. at 18-21 ).
After evaluating the references, taking into account the specific
teachings and inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom, we have found no error in the Examiner's
6
Appeal2014-002199
Application 12/290,631
obviousness determination. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) ("[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ."); see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1264--65 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26
( CCP A 19 81) ("The test for obviousness ... is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art."); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.").
Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above and in the Answer,
Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness
determination.
We sustain all of the Examiner's § 103 rejections on appeal.
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
7