Ex Parte Prengler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

13847437 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
137837.00003 6034
EXAMINER
JUNG, JAY YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/847,437 03/19/2013
33649 7590
Mr. Christopher John Rourk
Jackson Walker LLP
2323 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201
Randall William Prengler
01/31/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDALL WILLIAM PRENGLER,
MARK MYLES CHAZANOW, and MICHAEL R. UHRICK
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
16—35. Claims 1—15 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ application relates to managing distributed renewable
energy systems. Spec. 11. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
16. A system for managing distributed renewable energy
systems comprising:
one or more solar photovoltaic electricity generation
systems coupled to an electric power grid and each configured to
generate service data and first meter data defining an amount of
energy generated by the solar photovoltaic electricity generation
system over a period of time;
a first institution coupled to one or more of the solar
photovoltaic electricity generation systems through the electric
power grid and configured to receive electric power from one or
more of the solar photovoltaic electricity generation systems and
to generate second meter data defining an amount of electric
power received from the electric power grid;
a photovoltaic electricity generation system service
provider system configured to receive maintenance and repair
service schedule data for the solar photovoltaic electricity
generation systems; and
a renewable energy services provider system coupled to
the solar photovoltaic electricity generation systems, the first
institution and the photovoltaic electricity generation system
service provider system, the renewable energy services provider
system configured to electronically receive the first meter data,
2
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
the second meter data and the service data, to allocate an amount
of energy from the first meter data to the first institution and to
generate the maintenance and repair service schedule data as a
function of the service data.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Di Martini
Ozog
Crabtree
Imes
US 2008/0177678 A1
US 2010/0179704 A1
US 2010/0217550 A1
US 2012/0046859 A1
July 24, 2008
July 15,2010
Aug. 26, 2010
Feb. 23, 2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 16, 17, 22, 23, 28—30, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozog and Crabtree.
Claims 18, 21, 24, 27, 31, 33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozog, Crabtree, and Imes.
Claims 19, 20, 25, 26, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ozog, Crabtree, and Di Martini.
ANALYSIS
Claims 16, 17, 22, 23, 28—30, and 32
Regarding independent claim 16, Appellants contend Crabtree fails to
teach “one or more solar photovoltaic electricity generation systems . . .
configured to generate service data.” Br. 9-10. Appellants further contend
3
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
Crabtree fails to teach “a photovoltaic electricity generation system service
provider system configured to receive maintenance and repair service
schedule data” and “a renewable energy services provider system . . .
configured to . . . generate the maintenance and repair service schedule data
as a function of the service data,” as further recited in claim 16. Br. 10—11.
Appellants also contend one would not have been motivated to combine
Crabtree’s statistics server with Ozog’s photovoltaic electricity generation
system. Br. 10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’arguments.
Ozog discloses an energy distribution system that receives energy
provider data from an energy provider and collects individualized energy
usage data and optimizes energy distribution, energy use, and cost of
service. Ozog, Abstract. Crabtree discloses a system that includes a number
of electricity generators 1140 that provide power to an electricity grid 1160
and a number of electric loads 1130 that draw electric power from the grid.
Crabtree, 198. In one embodiment,
data is pushed from a gateway 1111 to a digital exchange 1100
in order to provide information concerning condition of loads
1130 and generators 1140. For example, gateway 1111, at a
specified time interval, may report to digital exchange 1100 that
generator 11406 is running and generating 500 watts of power .
Crabtree, 199. Further, in one embodiment, Crabtree’s digital exchange
provides a market for buying and selling securities for protection against the
physical reliability of assets in the system. Crabtree, 1148. A statistics
server at the digital exchange calculates certain information that is useful for
market participants in making decisions regarding securities. Id. For
example:
4
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
The reliability profile and historical data for a given
infrastructure asset primarily, albeit not exclusively, targeted at
transmission and distribution (to include routine maintenance
that may involve shutting down a given asset as well potentially
cataclysmic events that can cause interruptions of service or
operation) is calculated by statistics server 1030 and made
available to participants.
Id. We find that Crabtree’s operational data for a generator pushed to the
digital exchange (Crabtree, 199) meets the claim 16 limitation of “service
data.” We further find that Crabtree’s “reliability profile and historical data
for a given infrastructure asset” calculated by the statistics server at the
digital exchange and made available to participants (Crabtree, 1148) meets
the claim 16 limitation of “maintenance and repair service schedule data.”
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the claimed
“service data” is generated by a “solar photovoltaic electricity generation
system,” not a statistics server. Br. 9—10. We find Crabtree’s statistics
server receives “service data”—e.g., operational data showing “that
generator 11406 is running and generating 500 watts of power” (Crabtree,
199)—from the gateway 1111 connected to a particular generator 1140.
Further, Crabtree discloses using solar arrays as an energy source. Crabtree,
1 80. Accordingly, Crabtree suggests generating “service data” by a “solar
photovoltaic electricity generation system,” as recited in claim 16.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Crabtree’s
“reliability profile and historical data for a given infrastructure asset” is not
the claimed “maintenance and repair service schedule data.” Br. 10. We
note that the “maintenance and repair service schedule data” is not used to
perform any specific function in claim 16 such that the content of the data
further defines the claimed system. Rather, the “maintenance and repair
5
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
service schedule data” is merely generated by “a renewable energy services
provider system” and received by “a photovoltaic electricity generation
system service provider system” in claim 16. There are no claimed
functions performed with the “maintenance and repair service schedule data”
that are dependent on the content of the data. Accordingly, we find the
terms “maintenance and repair service schedule” in the limitation
“maintenance and repair service schedule data” are due little patentable
weight, and we construe this data limitation as any generic data that can be
generated and transmitted within a renewable energy system. See Ex parte
Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (Precedential) (“[T]he nature of
the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an
otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.”); see
also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (Informative)
(finding the term “sporting” not due patentable weight in a claim directed to
an on-screen scoreboard displayed over a broadcasted “sporting event”).
Thus, we find Crabtree’s “reliability profile and historical data”
calculated by the statistics server meets the limitation of “maintenance and
repair service schedule data” because it is data that is generated and
transmitted within a renewable energy system. Appellants’ argument that
Crabtree’s “reliability profile and historical data” is not “maintenance and
repair service schedule data” because “it is information used by market
participants to hedge against the risk that given energy securities purchased
on digital exchange 1000 might lose value” (Br. 10) is not persuasive
because there are no limitations in claim 16 that preclude the claimed
“maintenance and repair service schedule data” from being used for this
purpose. Again, claim 16 recites no specific function performed using the
claimed “maintenance and repair service schedule data.”
6
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
Appellants’ argument that Crabtree does not teach generating the
“maintenance and repair service schedule data as a function of the service
data” at a “renewable energy services provider system” (Br. 11) is also not
persuasive. We note that claim 16 does not specifically define how the
“maintenance and repair service schedule data” is generated, other than that
it is generated “as a function of the service data.” Crabtree’s generators send
operational data to the digital exchange (Crabtree, 199), and the statistics
server calculates “reliability profile and historical data” for infrastructure
assets. Crabtree, 1148. We find Crabtree suggests generating the
“reliability profile and historical data”—i.e., the claimed “maintenance and
repair service schedule data”—as a function of the operational data from
generators—i.e., the claimed “service data”—because the statistics server
would need such operational data in order to calculate a profile of a given
asset, such as a generator.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner has not “address[ed] why one of ordinary skill would combine the
statistics server of Crabtree with a solar photovoltaic electricity generation
system of Ozog.” Br. 10. We agree with the Examiner that one would have
been motivated to combine Crabtree’s statistics server with Ozog’s system
to use a market to more effectively manage the distribution of energy in an
electric grid system. See Final Act. 5; Crabtree, 127. Appellants have not
specifically explained why the asserted market-based efficiency
improvement provided by Crabtree’s statistics server in a digital exchange
would have provided insufficient motivation to combine Crabtree with
Ozog.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 16, and dependent claim 17 not specifically argued
7
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
separately. Although Appellants nominally argue independent claims 22
and 28 separately, the arguments presented are similar to those provided for
claim 16. See Br. 11—13. Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 22 and 28, and claims 23, 29, 30, and 32 depending
therefrom, for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 16.
Claims 18, 24, and 33
Appellants contend that Imes fails to teach a fuel cell power
generation system that generates service data and that the Examiner uses
impermissible hindsight in combining Imes with Ozog and Crabtree. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Imes describes an energy management system in which a particular
site can include a distributed energy generation asset, including “various
types of energy producing assets such as a .. . fuel cell generator, solar
array, . . . wind turbine generator ... or any combination thereof capable of
outputting energy.” Imes, 39-40. Accordingly, Imes discloses not only a
fuel cell generator in a distributed energy generation arrangement, but that a
fuel cell generator can be combined with other energy producing assets such
as solar arrays and wind turbines. Thus, Imes suggests the combination of a
fuel cell generator with the solar photovoltaic electricity generation system
of Ozog and Crabtree, which weighs against any hindsight bias on the part
of the Examiner. Moreover, Appellants have not shown adding Imes’s fuel
cell generator to the system of Ozog and Crabtree would have yielded
unpredictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 417
(2007) (“[W]hen a [claimed invention] ‘simply arranges old elements with
each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields
no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination
is obvious.”). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
8
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
that including lines’s fuel cell generator in the combination of Ozog and
Crabtree would entail generating “service data” to push to Crabtree’s digital
exchange, as discussed above regarding Crabtree’s generators 1140. See
Crabtree, 199.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
18, and claims 24 and 33 not specifically argued separately.
Claims 19, 20, 25, 26, and 34
Appellants contend the Examiner’s reason for combining Di Martini
with Ozog and Crabtree in rejecting claims 19, 20, 25, 26, and 34 does not
have a rational underpinning. Br. 15—16. We disagree with Appellants.
Di Martini is generally drawn to a method of communicating between
a utility and individual customer locations. Di Martini, Abstract; 110. In
particular, Di Martini discloses an advanced utility meter that
“communicates between the utility and multiple appliances and/or other
pieces of equipment located at each individual customer location.” Di
Martini, 112. As the Examiner finds (Final Act. 20; Ans. 6), Di Martini’s
communication method that uses an advanced utility meter “can improve the
quality and efficiency of network optimization” for an electrical utility. Di
Martini, 125. Di Martini further discloses a settlement process that includes
preparing bills and invoices based on data from meters. Di Martini, 1260.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
combine Di Martini’s advanced utility meter with the system of Ozog and
Crabtree because it would “improve the quality and efficiency of network
optimization” by better communicating meter data to a utility, which meter
data can be used to prepare bills and invoices. Ans. 6; Di Martini, || 25,
260. This reasoning has a rational underpinning because the system of Ozog
and Crabtree would benefit from improved communication of meter data,
9
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
given that meter data is essential in operating an energy generation and
distribution system such as the combined system of Ozog and Crabtree.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 19, 20, 25, 26, and 34.
Claims 21, 27, and 35
Appellants contend Imes in combination with Ozog and Crabtree fails
to disclose “a service provider management system for receiving the service
data and for selecting one of a plurality of service providers as a function of
a type of routine maintenance, a type of repair, and a location of a renewable
energy component,” as recited in claim 21. We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner relies on Imes for disclosing the disputed limitation in
claim 21. Final Act. 14. Imes describes sending energy alerts to third
parties to initiate a service call regarding the performance of an energy
consuming device. Imes, 161.
For example, one or more third parties may subscribe to a service
to buy leads based on an energy consuming device[’]s
performance eroding. Server 204 can include a lead generation
module ... that can be communicated using message module 240
to a subscriber such as a service company, appliance provider,
and the like.
Id. Here, although Imes teaches alerting service providers to the
performance of a device, the Examiner has not shown Imes teaches
“selecting” a service provider, let alone selecting a provider based on “a type
of routine maintenance, a type of repair, and a location of a renewable
energy component,” as required by claim 21.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 21, and claims 27 and 35 which recite similar
limitations.
10
Appeal 2017-008111
Application 13/847,437
Claim 31
Appellants contend the Examiner “analyzes claim 31 based on fuel
cell limitations, but claim 31 does not include any such limitations.” Br. 14.
We disagree with Appellants. Claim 31 recites “wherein the one or more
non-combustion turbine electricity generation systems comprise one or more
solar photovoltaic systems and one or more fuel cell power systems.”
Appellants’ argument, therefore, is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 31, and is not persuasive of error.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21, 27, and 35, but did not err
in rejecting claims 16—20, 22—26, and 28—34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 27, and 35,
and affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16—20, 22—26, and 28—
34.
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-IN-PART
11