SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2021

2019005668 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2021)

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.
14/501,346 09/30/2014 Matthew Stanlake S2180-716319(SPL-0280) 2493
79680 7590 01/21/2021
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
A2000
60 STATE STREET, 23RD FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02109
EXAMINER
RUTTEN, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2021 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):
CKent@LALaw.com
docketing@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW STANLAKE
____________

Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 3, 6–13, and 16–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Schneider
Electric IT Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention pertains to load balancing an electrical power
generation and distribution system. In one aspect, a load balance controller
can aggregate load balancing energy consuming devices so that, based on
the devices’ operating constraints, the devices are controlled such that
energy consumption minimizes a deviation between an energy consumption
value and an associated threshold value. See Spec. 16, 20–22. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A system for energy consumption management, the system
comprising:
a monitoring system;
a plurality of load balancing energy consuming devices; and
a load balance controller logically coupled to the monitoring
system and the plurality of load balancing energy consuming
devices, the load balance controller configured to:
receive an input signal from the monitoring system, the
input signal indicating a deviation of an energy consumption
value from a first energy consumption threshold value;
output a first control signal to the plurality of load
balancing energy consuming devices, the first control signal
being generated based on the input signal, the first control
signal instructing each of the plurality of load balancing energy
consuming devices to report current operational constraints;
determine at least one current operational constraint of
the reported current operational constraints using statistical
modeling techniques;
aggregate, in real-time, at least a first load balancing
energy consuming device of the plurality of load balancing
energy consuming devices and at least a second load balancing
energy consuming device based on the indicated deviation, the
at least one determined current operational constraint, and the
reported current operational constraints; and
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

3
output a second control signal to the aggregated load
balancing energy consuming devices, the second control signal
selectively controlling an energy consumption parameter of the
aggregated load balancing energy consuming devices, the
second control signal being iteratively output until the
controlled energy consumption parameter causes the deviation
to be minimized.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6–13, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Iravani (US 2013/0338843 Al; published Dec.
19, 2013), Najewicz (US 2013/0218360 Al; published Aug. 22, 2013), and
Sen (US 2014/0281645 Al; published Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 3–10.2
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Iravani, Najewicz, Sen, and Frazer (US 2013/0090745 Al;
published Apr. 11, 2013). Final Act. 10.

THE REJECTION OVER IRAVANI, NAJEWICZ, AND SEN
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Iravani
discloses an energy consumption management system comprising, among
other things, (1) load balancing energy consuming devices, including
controllable loads 114, and (2) a load balance controller, including
distribution side controller 110, that outputs a first control signal to the load
balancing energy consuming devices, where the control signal is generated
based on a received input signal indicating a deviation of an energy

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed
May 18, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 25, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 24, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and (4) the Reply Brief filed July 17, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

4
consumption value from a first threshold value. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 4.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that (1) Iravani’s control signal does
not instruct each load balancing energy consuming device to report current
operational constraints, and (2) Iravani’s load balance controller does not
determine current operational constraints and aggregate at least two load
balancing energy consuming devices in real time as claimed, the Examiner
cites Najewicz as teaching these features. Final Act. 5–6. Although the
Examiner acknowledges that Najewicz’s current operational constraint
determination does not use statistical modeling techniques, the Examiner
cites Sen for teaching that feature. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner also finds
that both Iravani and Najewicz teach outputting a second control signal to
aggregated load balancing energy consuming devices as claimed. Final Act.
6. Given the cited references’ collective teachings, the Examiner concludes
that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 3–6.
Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest (1)
load balancing energy consuming devices; (2) using statistical modeling
techniques to determine a current operational constraint associated with a
load balancing energy consuming device; and then (3) using this
determination as a basis for aggregating load balancing energy consuming
devices in real time as claimed. Appeal Br. 6–9. According to Appellant,
Iravani’s controllable loads are not load balancing energy consuming
devices because Iravani’s controllable loads are incapable of responding to a
load imbalance without significantly affecting their own performance—a
key requirement of a load balancing energy consuming device under the
term’s definition in the Specification. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 1–2.
Appellant adds that not only is Iravani’s load prediction information
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

5
associated with the distribution network and not operational constraints of
individual load balancing energy consuming devices, Sen’s statistical
models are not used to determine current operational constraints associated
with load balancing energy consuming devices, but rather are used to predict
future events or outcomes, such as power surges or device failures. Appeal
Br. 8–9. According to Appellant, Sen does not disclose load balancing
energy consuming devices, but rather power consumption devices that are
incapable of responding to a load imbalance without significantly affecting
their own performance. Appeal Br. 8.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Iravani, Najewicz, and Sen collectively would have taught or suggested
(1) load balancing energy consuming devices; (2) determining at least one
current operational constraint of reported current operational constraints
using statistical modeling techniques; and (3) aggregating at least two load
balancing energy consuming devices in real time based on (a) the indicated
deviation, and (b) the determined and reported current operational
constraints?

ANALYSIS
We begin by construing a key disputed limitation of claim 1, namely
load balancing energy consuming devices. Page 10 of Appellant’s
Specification defines the term “load balancing energy consuming device” as
“generally refer[ring] to one or more power consuming and/or storing
devices that are capable of responding to a load imbalance without
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

6
significantly affecting their own performance.” Although expressed in
broad and general terms, this statement is nonetheless a concrete definition
of the term “load balancing energy consuming device”3 despite the
Examiner’s finding to the contrary. See Ans. 4 (finding that this broad
description does not establish a “hard definition” of what must be considered
a load balancing energy consuming device).
Notably, the Specification provides various examples of load
balancing energy consuming devices that satisfy the requisite load imbalance
response criteria under the term’s definition, including devices that
compensate for variations in frequency or magnitude of supplied power,
such as refrigerators, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
units, ovens, pumps, lighting, etc. Spec. 10–11. The Specification’s page 11
adds that, in at least one embodiment, load balancing energy consuming
devices can store or “stockpile” energy. For example, refrigeration and
HVAC units can be turned off and on for short time periods without
affecting their operation. Spec. 11. In one instance, depending on the type
of unit, building construction, and user needs, a HVAC unit can be turned
off for certain time intervals as long as the rooms’ temperature remains
within a certain range. Id.
The Specification’s page 11 further explains that load balancing
energy consuming devices can be configured to turn off and on to consume
less or more power, respectively, without significantly affecting their overall

3 Although the Specification’s page 10 also refers to “load balancing
devices” and “balancing devices” as synonymous with “load balancing
energy consuming devices,” we nonetheless refer to these devices as “load
balancing energy consuming devices” consistent with term’s usage in the
claims.
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

7
performance. For example, for load balancing energy consuming devices
that are lighting systems, lights can be turned on during the day without
causing any significant impact to their performance. Spec. 11. In another
example, an ornamental water fountain display can be turned on at various
times, such as during non-business hours or at night. Id.
Our emphasis underscores that load balancing energy consuming
devices can be loads that are controlled by turning them on and off, such as
lights and HVAC units. But merely controlling these energy-consuming
loads by switching them on and off is not enough for them to qualify as load
balancing energy consuming devices under the term’s definition: they must
also be capable of responding to a load imbalance without significantly
affecting their own performance, as illustrated by the Specification’s
examples. See Spec. 10.
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that
Iravani’s controllable loads 114 are at least capable of this load imbalance
response given their ability to respond to control commands when loads are
imbalanced. See Ans. 4 (citing Iravani ¶¶ 84, 92, 94). That Iravani’s loads
are controlled by controller 110 that (1) can reduce power demand or load in
a distribution network by instructing controllable loads 114 to reduce or stop
consuming power in paragraph 112; (2) can instruct a controllable load to
reduce or stop energy for a fixed time as noted in paragraph 100; (3) is
responsive to distribution network imbalances, including changes in the
balance of power input and consumption as noted in paragraph 94; and (4)
can modify the operation of distribution-side devices to achieve an efficient
power balance in paragraph 117 suggests that Iravani’s controllable loads
are at least capable of responding to a load imbalance without significantly
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

8
affecting their own performance. Given this capability, Iravani at least
suggests that the controllable loads are load balancing energy consuming
devices consistent with the term’s definition. To the extent Appellant
contends otherwise, or contends that the performance of Iravani’s
controllable loads is somehow affected significantly when responding to
load imbalances to preclude them from being load balancing energy
consuming devices (see Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 1–2), there is no persuasive
evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Najewicz for at
least suggesting (1) determining current operational constraints, and (2)
aggregating at least two load balancing energy consuming devices in real
time based on the recited deviation and determined and reported current
operational constraints as claimed. See Final Act. 4 (citing Najewicz ¶¶ 58–
61, Fig. 4). We reach this conclusion noting that the term “current
operational constraints” is rather broad, and can include, among other things,
a load balancing energy consuming device’s current operational status, such
as whether the device is on or off as noted on page 16 of the Specification.
Notably, Appellant fails to squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—
the Examiner’s particular findings in this regard. See Appeal Br. 7–9. In
short, Appellant’s arguments regarding Iravani’s and Sen’s alleged
shortcomings do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is
based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See Ans. 5–6 (noting this point).
As the Examiner explains, Sen was cited for a very limited purpose,
namely to show that using statistical modeling to determine operating
constraints is known in the art, and that using such a known statistical
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

9
modeling technique to determine current operational constraints in the
Iravani/Najewicz system would have been obvious. See Ans. 5–6; Final
Act. 4–5 (citing Sen ¶ 62). Therefore, Appellant’s arguments regarding
Sen’s alleged shortcomings regarding load balancing energy consuming
devices and determining current operational constraints (Appeal Br. 8) are
not only inapposite to the Examiner’s limited reliance on Sen, Appellant’s
arguments are not germane to the Examiner’s reliance on the cited
references’ collective teachings in this regard. In short, the Examiner’s
proposed enhancement to the Iravani/Najewicz system by using statistical
modeling techniques such as those used in Sen uses prior art elements
predictably according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 3, 6–13, and 17–20 not argued separately with
particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 16.
Final Act. 10. Because this rejection is not argued separately with
particularity, we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons
previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Appeal 2019-005668
Application 14/501,346

10
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6–
13, 17–
20
103 Iravani,
Najewicz,
Sen
1, 3, 6–13,
17–20

16 103 Iravani,
Najewicz,
Sen, Frazer
16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 6–13,
16–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED