Ex Parte Sharma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12609706 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/609,706 10/30/2009 Ratnesh Kumar Sharma
56436 7590 06/29/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82259486 8934
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RA TNESH KUMAR SHARMA, MANISH MARW AH, and
CULLEN E. BASH1
Appeal2015-001730
Application 12/609,706
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--6, 11-14, and 19-22. Claims 7-9 and 15-17
have been withdrawn, and claims 10 and 18 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-001730
Application 12/609,706
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to "determining regions of influence
of a plurality of fluid moving devices in an infrastructure." Spec. i-f 11.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method for determining regions of influence of a plurality of
fluid moving devices in an infrastructure, said method comprising:
collecting fluid supply data pertaining to an environmental
condition of the fluid at respective outlets of each of the plurality of
fluid moving devices;
collecting sensor data from a plurality of sensors pertaining to
an environmental condition of the fluid detected at positions distanced
from the plurality of fluid moving devices;
computing a correlation metric-based value for each of the
plurality of sensors with respect to each of a plurality of fluid supply
conditions over a predetennined tirne series during which the
plurality of fluid moving devices are not put through a commissioning
process in which each of the plurality of fluid moving devices are
individually manipulated to identifY correlations between the plurality
of fluid moving devices and the plurality of sensors;
generating, in a computing device, a plurality of clusters
through implementation of a clustering operation on the correlation
metric-based values, wherein each of the plurality of clusters contains
a representation of the fluid supply data and the sensor data of one or
more of the plurality of sensors; and
identifying regions of influence of each of the plurality of fluid
moving devices from an analysis of the generated clusters.
2
Appeal2015-001730
Application 12/609,706
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-5, 11-14, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 7,117,129 Bl; Oct. 3,
2006) ("Bash"), and Mukherjee, Systematic Temperature Sensor Allocation
and Placement for Microprocessors, Northwestern University 542-547
(2006) ("Mukherjee").
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bash, Mukherjee, and Miller et al. (US 2006/0052968 Al;
Mar. 9, 2006) ("Miller").
ANALYSIS2
We agree with Appellants the Examiner erred by finding Bash teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation recited in independent claim 1, and as
similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 19. App. Br. 8-11. In
particular, we agree with Appellants' assertion Bash is directed to a
"'method for commissioning sensors' in which CRAC units are individually
manipulated to identify corrections between the CRAC units and a plurality
of sensors." App. Br. 10 (citing Bash Fig. 6). That is, rather than
calculating a correlation metric-based value outside of the commissioning
2 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
May 20, 2014); Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed October 29,
2014); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 20, 2013);
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed on August 29, 2014).
3
Appeal2015-001730
Application 12/609,706
process, Bash discloses performing the calculation during the
. . .
comm1ss10mng process.
Figure 4A of Bash is illustrative and is reproduced below:
START
402
SET CRAC UNITS TO A FIRST DISTRIBUTION LEVEL
WAIT A PERIOD OF TIME
RECORD SENSOR TEMPERA TURES
408
CHANGE SUPPLY TEMPERATURE OF A 410
CRAC UNIT BY A SPECIFIED AMOUNT {N°)
WAIT A PERIOD OF TIME 412
RECORD SENSOR TEMPERATURES
CALCULATE SENSOR· TO.ACTUATOR
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
414
416
418
RESET CRAC UNIT TO ORIGINAL SUPPLY TEMPERATURE
CHANGE SUPPLY
TEMPERATURE OF
NEXT CRAC UNIT BY--<
THE SPECIFIED
AMOUNT(N°)
SET CRAC UNITS
TO NEXT
DISTRIBUTION
LEVEL
FIG. 4A
NO
404
Figure 4A of Bash, including steps 402--426, depicts "a method for
commissioning sensors." Bash col. 9, 1. 30 through col. 12, 1. 20. As shown,
for a first distribution level, Bash teaches changing a CRAC unit's supply
temperature at step 410. Bash col. 10, 11. 15-26. At step 416, a sensor-to-
actuator correlation coefficient (Ci) is calculated for a set of sensors.
4
Appeal2015-001730
Application 12/609,706
Bash col. 10, 11. 43-55. As illustrated, the steps discussed supra are repeated
for each additional distribution level. Bash col. 11, 11. 45-55. Accordingly,
we agree with Appellants that a sensor-to-actuator correlation coefficient
(Ci) (the claimed "correlation metric-based value") is calculated for a
plurality of sensors over a predetermined time series (step 416 is repeated
during each iteration of the program loop) but, contrary to the requirements
of claim 1, the calculation is performed during a period in which a plurality
of CRACs are put through the commissioning process, i.e., each of the
CRACs are individually manipulated to identify correlations between the
CRACs and the plurality of sensors (step 410 is repeatedly performed).
Thus, we agree with Appellants' argument Bash' s commissioning process is
performed in determining correlation metric-based values and, based on the
record before us, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that it
would have been obvious to determine the correlation metric-based values
outside of the commissioning process as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10
(citing Bash Figure 6). See also Reply Br. 4--5.
In view of the above discussion, and on the record before us, we find
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 11, and 19, and all
dependent claims therefrom. Because we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants' other arguments.
5
Appeal2015-001730
Application 12/609,706
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 11-14, and
19-22.
REVERSED
6