Ex Parte Parakkuth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

10839301 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

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.
10/839,301 05/05/2004 Jayapal Dharmapalan Parakkuth 2003P08116US01 6023
7590 02/27/2013
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
PHAM, LINH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2013 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 JAYAPAL DHARMAPALAN PARAKKUTH
and KRISHNA VASUDEVAN1
____________

Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER,
and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20. Claim 4 is cancelled. Br. 2.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Siemens Energy, Inc. is the real party in interest.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed April
14, 2009; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed July 21, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

2
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to devices, systems, methods, and
computer-readable media storing instructions for monitoring electrical
power distribution systems. See generally Abstract. Embodiments of the
invention provide a network-communicated, SVG-formatted, static
representation of a schematic of an electrical power distribution system. Id.
The static representation may be rendered on a user interface. Id. Further,
embodiments may provide at least one measurable value related to an
element of the electrical power distribution system. Id. The at least one
measurable value may be rendered on a user interface, without refreshing the
static representation. Id. Claims 1 and 5 are illustrative and are reproduced
below with disputed elements emphasized:
1. An output device comprising:
a network-communicated scalable vector graphics (SVG)-
rendered static representation of a schematic of an electrical power
distribution system, said static representation rendered on a first
virtual information layer of said output device; and
at least one measurable value related to an element of the
electrical power distribution system, said at least one measurable
value rendered on a second virtual information layer of said output
device, said at least one measurable value dynamically updatable by
updating said second virtual information layer, without refreshing
said static representation rendered on said first virtual information
layer.

5. The output device of claim 1, further comprising:
an alert corresponding to said at least one measurable value
exceeding a predetermined threshold, said alert dynamically
updatable without refreshing said static representation.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gasper US 2004/0162642 A1 Aug. 19, 2004
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

3
Forth US 6,961,641 B1 Nov. 1, 2005
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Gasper. Ans. 3-8.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gasper and Forth. Id. at 9-11.

ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER GASPER
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds
that Gasper discloses each and every element of claim 1. Ans. 3-4. In
particular, the Examiner finds that, in Figure 5c, Gasper discloses both a first
virtual information layer and a second virtual information layer. Id. at 4
(citing Gasper, Fig. 5c). Thus, the Examiner concludes that Gasper also
discloses each and every element of claims 2, 3, 6-12, 14, and 19. Further,
regarding representative claim 5, the Examiner finds that Gasper discloses
an alert activated when a measurable value exceeds a predetermined
threshold, such that the alert is capable of being dynamically updated
without refreshing a static representation of the schematic. Id. at 5.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that Gasper also discloses each and every
element of claims 13, 15, and 20.
Appellants argue that Gasper fails to disclose both the first virtual
information layer and the second virtual information layer of claim 1. Br. 9-
10. Further, Appellants argue that Gasper fails to disclose an alert that is
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

4
“dynamically updatable without refreshing said static representation,” as
recited in claim 5. Id. at 10-11.
ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Gasper discloses:
(1) that
said static representation rendered on a first virtual
information layer of said output device; and
. . . said at least one measurable value rendered on
a second virtual information layer of said output device,
said at least one measurable value dynamically updatable
by updating said second virtual information layer,
without refreshing said static representation rendered on
said first virtual information layer
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added); and
(2) that “said alert dynamically updatable without refreshing said
static representation,” as recited in claim 5?
ANALYSIS
1. Claim 1.
We begin by construing the disputed element of claim 1 which calls
for, in pertinent part,
said static representation rendered on a first virtual information
layer of said output device; and
. . . said at least one measurable value rendered on a
second virtual information layer of said output device, said at
least one measurable value dynamically updatable by updating
said second virtual information layer, without refreshing said
static representation rendered on said first virtual information
layer.
(emphases added). In construing these elements, we apply the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage, as those words
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

5
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
any definitions supplied by Appellants’ Specification. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Initially, we note that we have found no definition for the term
“virtual information layer” in Appellants’ disclosure. Moreover, although
Appellants expressly define most of the terms in the pending claims,
Appellants do not expressly define the term “virtual information layer.”
Nevertheless, Appellants state that “[t]he first virtual information layer can
be provided to the user interface as a separate logical component of a
process monitoring display.” Spec. ¶ [75]; see also Spec. ¶ [76] (similarly
describing a second virtual information layer). Further, Appellants indicate
that Figure 2 depicts the elements, e.g., elements 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400,
etc., of a static representation of a schematic of an electrical power
distribution system rendered on a first virtual information layer. Br. 3. In
addition, Appellants indicate that Figure 2 depicts at least one measurable
value, e.g., element 2800, on a second virtual information layer. Id. Thus,
in view of the depictions in Appellants’ Figure 2 and the descriptions in the
cited paragraphs of the Specification, we construe the term “virtual
information layer” to mean a separate component of a display that may be
layered on top of or may overlap another portion or layer of the display.
Referring to Appellants’ Figure 2, we note that Appellants depict a
first virtual information layer, identified generally by the box containing all
of the elements on user interface 2000, and a second virtual information
layer, identifies generally by the separate box labeled as sensor value display
2800. Spec. ¶¶ [72]-[73]. The claims are interpreted in light of the
specification; however, limitations from the specification are not read into
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

6
the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To the
extent that Appellants intended to define the first and the second virtual
information layers by the depiction of Figure 2, they have not made this
intention clear in their claim language or in the Specification. “It is the
applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the [U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office’s].” Morris, 127 F.3d at 1056.
Referring to Gasper’s Figure 5c, the Examiner finds that the
icons/labels: “Main,” Generator 1,” “Generator 2,” “UPS Primary” and
“UPS Secondary,” as well as the titles/labels: “Vin(avg),” “kW(tot),” and
“Total Backup Supply,” disclose the static representation of a schematic
rendered on a first virtual information layer. Ans. 4, 12-13. Further, the
Examiner finds that the display of real time values, e.g., powers, currents,
voltages, etc., in Figure 5c discloses the rendering of at least one measurable
value on the second virtual information layer of the output device. Id.
Finally, because the elements of the static representation of the schematic do
not change with the real time values, the Examiner concludes that Gasper
discloses dynamically (i.e., in a time-varying manner (Spec. ¶ [14]))
updating the at least one measurable value of the second virtual information
layer, “without refreshing said static representation rendered on said first
virtual information layer.” Ans. 4, 12-13; see In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,
826 (CCPA 1968) (noting that “in considering the disclosure of a reference,
it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom”). Given the broad construction given to the
term virtual information layer, we agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

7
Appellants acknowledge that, in the portions of Gasper cited by the
Examiner, Gasper’s discloses displaying current and historical power system
data. Br. 9. Nevertheless, Appellants argue that “no where [sic] [in Gasper]
is there any reference to the first and the second virtual information layers
and thus no reference to updating the second virtual information layer
without refreshing the static representation on the first virtual information
layer.” Id. at 9-10. There is no ipsissimis verbis test, however, for
determining whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of
terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although Gasper does not use the precise language of claim 1, the Examiner
correctly concludes that Gasper discloses the claim elements. For the
reasons set forth above, we conclude that the Examiner demonstrates that
Gasper discloses the first and the second virtual information layers of claim
1 and that the second virtual information layer is updated without refreshing
the first virtual information layer.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 12, 14,
and 19, which contain elements corresponding to those of claim 1 and are
not argued separately with particularity (Br. 10); and (3) dependent claims 2,
3, and 6-11, which depend from claim 1 and are not separately argued with
particularity (id. at 10-11). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these
claims.
2. Claim 5.
We begin by construing the disputed element of claim 5 which calls
for, in pertinent part, “said alert dynamically updatable without refreshing
said static representation.” Initially, we note that Appellants define an alert
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

8
as “an electrical, electronic, or mechanical device and/or or display that
serves to advise of a condition by means of a sound or signal.” Spec. ¶ [9].
Further, because the alert is “dynamically updatable,” the alert is adaptable
to be provided with more current information in a time varying manner. Id.
at ¶¶ [14] (definition of “dynamic”), [56] (definition of “updatable”).
Finally, the dynamic updating of the alert occurs without updating the static
representation, i.e., “a rendering that does not substantially change during a
session.” Id. at ¶¶ [40] (definition of “refresh”), [48] (definition of “static
representation”).
Appellants acknowledge that Gasper describes “displaying an alarm
condition if energy usage exceeds a set limit.” Br. 10 (citing Gasper, ¶
[0056]); see also Ans. 14 (citing Gasper, Claim 59 (comparing power
management data to a pre-defined alert threshold)). Appellants argue that
this teaching does not disclose the disputed element of claim 5, as construed
above, but the Examiner does not contend that this teaches all disputed
elements. Instead, the Examiner finds that Gasper discloses that “power
management data can be dynamic, constantly changing data such as
continual updates of power usage or it can be static, infrequently changing
data such as alarming levels.” Gasper, ¶ [0026]; see Final Rej. 4. Although
Gasper’s use of the terms “dynamic” and “static” is not identical to
Appellants’, Gasper’s description of alarms levels as “infrequently
changing” satisfies Appellants’ definition of dynamic as “time varying.”
Gasper further discloses that custom views “combin[e] real time
power management data with a preconfigured alarming limit and taking
action if a certain value exceeds a given limit, where the action may be
sending email, paging, or displaying an error condition.” Gasper, ¶ [0039]
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

9
(emphases added). Thus, the Examiner concludes that, because the alert
may be provided by email or paging, the alert may be dynamically updated
“without refreshing said static representation.” Ans. 5, 14 (citing Gasper
¶¶ [0039], [0056]); Final Rej. 4. In further support of the Examiner’s
finding, we note that Gaspar states that “[i]t will be appreciated that the
disclosed embodiments enable many ways of disseminating power
management data [such as alarming limits] besides display in a browser
window, including emailing, paging and printing.” Gasper, ¶ [0036]
(emphasis added). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Gasper
discloses the disputed element of claim 5.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of: (1) claim 5 and (2) claims 13, 15, and 20, which contain
elements corresponding to those of claim 5 and are not argued separately
with particularity. Br. 10-11. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these
claims.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER GASPER AND FORTH
As noted above, the Examiner finds that Gasper discloses all of the
limitations of independent claim 14, from which claims 16-18 depend. Ans.
9. Nevertheless, the Examiner acknowledges that Gasper does not disclose
the limitations added by dependent claims 16-18. Id. at 9-11. The Examiner
finds, however, that Forth teaches the additional limitations of claims 16-18.
Id.
Appellants do not argue these claims separately. Br. 11. Moreover,
Appellants substantially agree with the Examiner’s reading of Forth. Id. at
8. Nevertheless, Appellants argue that Forth fails to supply the alleged
Appeal 2010-002676
Application 10/839,301

10
deficiencies in Gasper, as applied to independent claim 14. Id. at 11. For
the reasons discussed above, we do not determine that Gasper is deficient
with respect to claim 14, and we are not persuaded by this argument.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 16-18.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-15, 19, and 20
under § 102(e) and claims 16-18 under § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-20 is affirmed.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc