Ex Parte Imhof et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2010

10818461 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2010)

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.
10/818,461 04/05/2004 Raphael Imhof 2003P05014US01 3837
7590 09/28/2010
Michael J. Wallace
Intellectual Property Counsel
Siemens Corporation
170 Wood Avenue South, 5th Floor
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
BAHTA, KIDEST
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RAPHAEL IMHOF and THOMAS ANDERSON
____________________

Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-212. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

According to Appellants, the invention relates to “building control
systems, such of the type that control heating, ventilation, air conditioning,
fire safety, lighting, security and other systems of a building or facility”
(Spec. 1).

Claim 1 is illustrative:
An arrangement for use in a building system comprising:

a building control station operably connected to a first
communication network, the building control station having a first
network address on the first communication network, the building
control station further comprising,

a network interface operable to receive first and second
messages on the first communication network,

a building control object operably coupled to receive first
messages from the network interface, the building control object
operable to process building control data based on at least some of the
received first messages, and

2 According to Appellants recitation of the claims, claim 11 depends from
claim 11 (see App. Br. 18, Claims App’x). We assume this is a
typographical error, and that claim 11 depends from claim 10. We will also
assume that the dependency of claims 12-16 and 21, on claim 11, is correct
(see App. Br. 18-20, Claims App’x).
Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

3
a communication network monitor object operably
coupled to receive first messages and second messages from the
network interface, the communication network monitor object
operable to determine at least a first statistic regarding the first
communication network based on the first messages and second
messages.

Rejection
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hull (U.S. Patent 6,487,457 B1, Nov. 26, 2002) in view of
Crowder et al. (U.S. 5,442,639, Aug. 15, 1995).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
1. Appellants argue claims 1-7, 10-13, and 16-19, as a group, on
the basis of claim 1 (see App. Br. 7-11). We select independent claim 1 as
the representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 2-7, 10-13, and 16-
19 as standing or falling with representative claim 1.
2. Appellants separately argue claims 8 and 9, on the basis of
claim 8 (see App. Br. 11-13). We select claim 8 as the representative claim.
We will, therefore, treat claim 9 as standing or falling with representative
claim 8.
3. Appellants separately argue claims 14, 15, 20, and 21, on the
basis of claim 14 (see App. Br. 13-14). We select claim 14 as the
representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 15, 20, and 21 as
standing or falling with representative claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Hull Reference
1a. Hull discloses, in FIG. 3, a “building information system that
supports the integration of new tools and services.” A client computer 300
is coupled to the server 304 via a communications network 302. (col. 6, ll.
12-15).
1b. Hull discloses, in FIG. 4, “a block diagram of a client/server
system in accordance with the present invention . . . .” (col. 6, ll. 57 - 58).
“The server 400 preferably comprises various services, at least one database,
and one or more interfaces to other components of the building system . . . .”
(see col. 7, ll. 18-20).
1c. Hull discloses that “[a] BMS 314 is coupled to the BACnet
network 306 to monitor and control the BACnet-compliant subsystems 311
(col. 6, ll. 31-33).
1d. Hull discloses:
In addition, the server 304 preferably includes a database
associatively storing at least two types of building-related data: (1)
building-related BMS data (e.g., from BMS 314 or from an internally
executing BMS service) and (2) building-related configuration data
corresponding to the building subsystems. Moreover, the BACnet-
to-Echelon gateway 316 in FIG. 3 provides an interface between the
BACnet 306 and an Echelon network 318. The controllers 320, the
meters 322, and the equipment 324, generally referred to as Echelon-
compliant subsystems 321, are coupled to the Echelon network 318.
(Col. 6, ll. 37-47).

1e. Hull discloses:
By virtue of the services and interfaces supported in the server 304,
the client 300 connects with the server 304 over communications
network 302 to manage and control the building subsystems (e.g.,
subsystems 311 and 321) coupled to the BMS or to obtain building-
Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

5
related dynamic data received from the BMS. (col. 6, ll. 50-56).

1f. Hull discloses: “The metering service preferably provides
functions for querying [] a list of meters that are to be read … [and] sending
to each client a list of meters to be read . . . .” (col. 13, ll. 26-27).
1g. Hull discloses: “For example, if configuration data includes
layout data regarding an air conditioning unit having [a] current sensor, the
power consumption for the air conditioning unit can be calculated by the
building information system.” (col. 14, ll. 37-41).
1h. Hull discloses: “The BMS service retrieves the consumption
data from meter A on the BMS network at the appropriate interval and
dynamically loads it into a database.” (col. 15, ll. 8-11).

Crowder Reference
2a. Crowder discloses: “The apparatus of the invention is
connected to such a network, as herein described, in order to monitor, detect
and analyze all communication signals . . . . Probe 7 contains hardware and
circuitry which performs the operations of the present invention in
conjunction with the user interface.” (see col. 4, ll. 19-67).
2b. Crowder discloses:
Computer software … may be used by the interface 8 to control the
operation of the identifier circuitry in probe 7 and to control the
identification of information and the collection of statistics from the
received communication signal, as well as the storage and display of
those statistics in user interface 8. After these statistics are collected,
the communication signal is then passed in standard fashion through
active filter array 4 contained in probe 7…. These filters actively
select the particular frames to be passed to user interface 8.
(see col. 6, ll. 16-30).
Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

6

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). If the
Examiner's burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Appellants to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness
is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 10-13, and 16-19
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in combining Hull and Crowder?

The Examiner finds Hull teaches or suggests the limitations of claim
1, with the exception of the network monitor object, and relies on Crowder
for disclosing the network monitor object (see Ans. 3-4). The Examiner
finds that “[i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time [] the invention was made to modify the teachings of Hull
with the teaching of Crowder in order to provide a method and apparatus for
monitoring and analyzing a communication network [that] accurately and
efficiently monitors the network, and quickly detects signaling errors” (Ans.
4).
Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

7
Further, the Examiner finds that both Hull and Crowder are in the
field of communication networks, and thus, there is sufficient motivation to
combine the references (see Ans. 7). Additionally, the Examiner finds that
both Hull and Crowder use a network interface for communication and
control of the network, as shown by Fig. 1 of Hull and Fig. 2 of Crowder,
and therefore, it also is appropriate to combine the two references (see Ans.
7).
Appellants acknowledge that Crowder teaches a “stand-alone network
monitoring probe” (App. Br. 8), and argue that “[e]ven if there were a
suggestion to place the ‘probe’ of Crowder into a computer that housed the
building control station of Hull, … there is no suggestion or motivation to
use the same network interface for both the building control object and the
network communication object.” (App. Br. 9) (emphasis omitted).
Hull discloses a building information system that supports the
integration of new tools and services (FF 1a). Furthermore, Hull suggests
having one or more interfaces (see FF 1a and 1b). Crowder suggests a probe
7, connected to a network, that monitors, detects and analyzes
communication signals (FF 2a). We find that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to connect the probe 7 (i.e., communication
network monitor object) of Crowder, to the same network interface as the
building control object of Hull, as Hull suggests having one interface.
Thus, we have considered Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner did not err in
combining Hull and Crowder.
Thus, we affirm the Examiners § 103 rejection of claim 1, and claims
2-7, 10-13, and 16-19, which fall therewith.
Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

8

Claims 8 and 9
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “wherein the building control station is further operable to
communicate information representative of the at least one statistic
regarding the first communication network . . . using the second network,”
as set forth in claim 8?

Appellants argue that “Hull does not and cannot teach communicating
the at least one statistic regarding the first network to other device[s] using a
second network because Hull does not teach obtaining the at least one
statistic” (App. Br. 12) (emphasis omitted). Further, Appellants argue that
“the Examiner has not alleged a motivation or suggestion to modify Hull to
communicate network statistics over a second network” (App. Br. 12).
The Examiner finds that Crowder discloses computer software that
may be used by user interface 8 to (1) “control the operation of the identifier
circuitry in probe 7” and (2) “to control the identification of information and
the collection of statistics from the received communication signal, as well
as the storage and display of those statistics in user interface 8” (Ans. 8-9).
Hull’s building information system includes a client computer 300
that connects to server 304 over a communications network 302 to, for
example, manage and control (i.e., communicate with) the building
subsystems, such as the controllers, meters and equipment which correspond
to element 311 and 321 of Fig. 3) (see FF 1a and 1e). Further, Hull discloses
that the client 300 connects with the server 304 over the communications
network 302 to obtain building related dynamic data received from the BMS
Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

9
314 (FF 1e). Further, Hull discloses that the BMS service retrieves
consumption data (e.g., power consumption for the air conditioning unit)
from meter A on the BMS network and loads it into a database (see FF 1f,
1g, and 1h). We conclude that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the consumption data corresponds to statistics
regarding a first network. Crowder also suggests (1) collecting statistics
from a received communication signal and (2) then passing the statistics to
another device (i.e., the user interface 8) (FF 2b).
Thus, we conclude it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to implement Crowder’s passing of data (i.e., statistics) from one
entity to another, in Hull, such that at least one statistic (i.e., power
consumption data) regarding a first network, is passed from a first network
(e.g., the BACnet 306) to a second network (e.g., the Echelon network), to
assist, for example, in the monitoring and controlling of any subsystems
coupled to the Echelon network (see FF 1d).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have failed to show the
Examiner erred in finding that the prior art teaches or suggests “wherein the
building control station is further operable to communicate information
representative of the at least one statistic regarding the first communication
network ... using the second network,” as set forth in claim 8. Thus, we
affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 8, and claim 9 which falls
therewith.

Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

10
Claims 14, 15, 20, and 21
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “communicating information representative of the usage statistic to
one of the plurality of other computing devices using the second network,”
as set forth in claim 14?

Appellants contend that “the Examiner does not appear to allege that
the proposed combination of Hull and Crowder communicate a first network
usage statistic at all, much less to a device using a second network,” and
thus, the rejection of claim 14 should be reversed (see App. Br. 13-14)
(emphasis omitted).
With regard to claim 14, the Examiner cites (1) col. 6, ll. 12-56;
(2) Fig. 3; and (3) Fig. 6b of Hull (see Ans. 5) and (2) relies on findings
made with respect to claim 8 (see Ans. 8-9).
As discussed above, with regard to claim 8, we find Hull discloses
communicating power consumption data that corresponds to statistics.
Further, we conclude it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art that the power consumption data reads on the claimed usage statistic,
as the amount of power consumed is equivalent to the amount of power
used.
Also, as discussed above with respect to claim 8, we concluded it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement
Crowder’s passing of data (i.e., statistics) from one entity to another, in Hull,
such that at least one statistic (i.e., power consumption data) regarding a first
network, is passed from a first network (e.g., the BACnet 306) to a second
network (e.g., the Echelon network), to assist, for example, in the monitoring
Appeal 2009-007580
Application 10/818,461

11
and controlling of any subsystems coupled to the Echelon network (see FF
1d).
Thus, we find the Examiner did not err in finding the prior art teaches
or suggests “communicating information representative of the usage statistic
to one of the plurality of other computing devices using the second
network,” as set forth in claim 14. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claim 14, and claims 15, 20, and 21 which fall therewith.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being obvious over Hull and Crowder, is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

erc

Michael J. Wallace
Intellectual Property Counsel
Siemens Corporation
170 Wood Avenue South, 5th Floor
Iselin, NJ 08830