Ex Parte Imes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

14508152 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
14/508,152 10/07/2014 Kevin R. Imes 2552.1013 8556
21171 7590 12/04/2017
STA AS fr HAT SFY T T P
EXAMINER
SUITE 700 LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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):
ptomail @ s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN R. IMES and JAMES HOLLISTER
Appeal 2017-007939
Application 14/508,152
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—14. Br. 3.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Allure Energy, Inc., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 4, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed September 22, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed May
4, 2015, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed October 7, 2014, “Spec.”)
for their respective details.
Appeal 2017-007939
Application 14/508,152
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to an on-site controller that alters an on-site
operating condition in response to detecting a mobile device has established
or lost an 802.11-based connection. See Abstract.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary Claim 1, the sole independent claim, which is reproduced below
with some formatting and emphasis added:
1. A system comprising:
a controller disposed at a site and including a
communication device capable of initiating an 802.11 based
network to communicate with a mobile device; and
said controller configured to:
detect the mobile device establishing or losing a
802.11 based connection to the 802.11 based network;
alter an operating condition at the site in response
to detecting the mobile device establishing the 802.11
based connection;
alter an operating condition at the site in response
to detecting the mobile device losing the 802.11 based
connection; and
receive a control setting from one of the mobile
device or a server disposed remotely from the site to alter
the operating condition.
2
Appeal 2017-007939
Application 14/508,152
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Trundle, et al, US 2010/0289643 A1 Nov. 18, 2010
Petricoin, Jr. , et al., US 2010/0198367 Al Aug. 5, 2010
Lu, et al, US 2011/0270452 Al Nov. 3, 2011
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 3—14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Trundle and Petricoin. Final Act. 3—9.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trundle, Petricoin, and Lu. Final Act. 9—10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—14 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5—10.
Claims 1-14: Obviousness over Trundle, Petricoin, and Lu
Appellants argue all claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. Br. 10. Thus, we decide this appeal on the basis of representative
Claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.”
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a “controller configured to: detect the
mobile device establishing or losing a 802.11 based connection to the 802.11
based network; [and] alter an operating condition at the site in response to
3
Appeal 2017-007939
Application 14/508,152
detecting the mobile device establishing [or losing] the 802.11 based
connection.”
Appellants contend the “802.11 based networks in Trundle and
Petricoin are simply used to communicate information between a mobile
device and a controller, not as a proxy for altering operating conditions at a
site based on whether the 802.11 based connection is established or lost.”
Br. 6. Appellants argue Trundle teaches mobile devices that connect via
wifi protocols and communicate with and receive monitoring system data
from a system control unit. Id., at 7 (citing Trundle, 1 55). Appellants argue
Petricoin teaches a mobile device may communicate its location via a wifi
protocol. Id. (citing Petricoin, 117). But, Appellants argue, mere
communication of a mobile device location does not teach altering
operations at a site based on whether a wifi (802.11) connection is gained or
lost. Id., at 6.
The Examiner finds Trundle teaches a site-located controller. Ans. 4.
The Examiner further finds the claim term “an operating condition at the
site” is broad enough to read on the type of connection formed by the mobile
device. Id., at 5. Thus, the Examiner finds that when the mobile device
establishes a wi-fi (802.11) connection to the on-site controller, the
controller alters its “operating conditions” to communicate by 802.11 link,
but when such 802.11 link is lost, the controller alters its “operating
conditions” to communicate by an alternative protocol. Id.
The issue is whether the communications protocol reads on the
claimed “operating conditions.” We agree with the Examiner that
Appellants do not provide claim construction guidance “in explicit
definitional format.” However, the Federal Circuit has “held that ‘[e]ven
4
Appeal 2017-007939
Application 14/508,152
when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the
specification may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning
may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” In re
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing
Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300
(Fed.Cir.2004)).
Appellants disclose Claim 1 relates to an energy management system
including a controller 216 located at a site 202. Br. 2; Spec., 1 56. The
controller is capable of initiating an 802.11-based network to communicate
with a mobile device 210. Id. The controller is configured to detect the
mobile device establishing or losing an 802.11-based connection to the
network and altering an operating condition at the site in response to
detecting a change in connection status. Id. (citing Spec., H 81, 84, 100,
109). The energy management system can include a server, a controller
capable of connecting to a wireless thermostat, a mobile device, one or more
smart appliances, and a distributed energy generating asset to establish a
wireless energy network 242. Spec., 142. The Specification discloses that
upon gain or loss of connection, the user of the mobile device may access an
energy management system application to alter “an operating condition at
site 202.” Spec., 1 85.
The claims recite a “controller configured to . . . alter an operating
condition at the site.” By implication, “alter an operating condition at the
site” relates to the operation of the energy management system. Abbott
Diabetes Care Inc., at 1150 (“the specification may define claim terms by
implication”). As found by the Examiner, the prior art teaches that altering
an operating condition means altering “how and what network (either Wi-Fi
5
Appeal 2017-007939
Application 14/508,152
or network 205) that is being used.” Ans. 4—5. R. 14. The Examiner does
not find that the prior art teaches altering the operation condition of an
energy management system, as claimed. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2—14.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6