Ex Parte Carlson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

14633098 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/633,098 02/26/2015
129553 7590 12/03/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/SolarCity
Mailstop: IP Docketing
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Daniel Carlson
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.
P40-2NUS 2539
EXAMINER
PHAN, THIEM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
docket@SolarCity.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC DANIEL CARLSON and KARTHIKEYAN
V ARADARAJAN
Appeal2018-003180
Application 14/633,098
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-003180
Application 14/633,098
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 21-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed generally "to energy generation and
storage systems, and in particular to techniques for facilitating the
management of such systems." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 21, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A system comprising:
an energy storage system including one or more
components located at a customer site; and
a site gateway including a processor, the site gateway
communicatively coupled to the energy storage system,
wherein the processor is configured to automatically:
receive, from a remote server, a component
database for the energy storage system;
receive, from each component in the one or more
components, a component identifier that uniquely
identifies the component;
retrieve, from the component database, information
for the one or more components by querying the
component database using the component identifiers; and
program each of the one or more uniquely identified
components for operation at the customer site without
manual on-site programming.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cherian US 8,401,709 B2 Mar. 19, 2013
2
Appeal2018-003180
Application 14/633,098
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
The Examiner rejects claims 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Cherian. Ans. 3.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' arguments all revolve around the Examiner's finding that
Cherian teaches the claimed retrieval and query of a component database
from a remote server. In general, the Examiner appears to be focused on the
result of the system rather than looking at the specific claimed elements of
the system and their related functions. For example, the claims require
receiving, from a remote server, a component database. Appellants are
correct, however, that Cherian discloses "a process by which the local
control module of Cherian can directly query a local component." App.
Br. 9. Accordingly, there is no retrieval of a component database, merely a
query of a local component to receive data about that local component.
Because of the lack of retrieval of a component database and this
direct querying of components, Cherian also fails to teach a component
identifier as claimed. Obviously, if the system is directly querying the
component, there is no need for an identifier because the system already
knows the source of the data. Additionally, because there is no database and
no identifier, there also can be no querying of the database based upon the
identifier as claimed. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over Cherian.
3
Appeal2018-003180
Application 14/633,098
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 21-2 9.
REVERSED
4