2021003414 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

Johnson Controls Technology Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 2021

2021003414 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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. 16/052,083 08/01/2018 Abhigyan Chatterjee 18-0047-US (116048-0390) 3857 146598 7590 09/30/2021 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER BAHTA, KIDEST ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2119 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2021 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): ipdocketing@foley.com uspatents@jci.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ABHIGYAN CHATTERJEE, RAJESH C. NAYAK, and BARKHA SHAH ____________________ Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,0831 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before St. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 1 A telephonic oral hearing was held September 23, 2021. A transcript will be made of record in due course. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed December 21, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed May 3, 2021 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed March 2, 2021 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection mailed May 20, 2020 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed August 1, 2018 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,083 2 Appellant3 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1–20, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to a building management system which includes a meter configured to provide data samples of a real point. See Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1 which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A building management system comprising: a meter configured to provide data samples of a real point, the real point corresponding to a first physical parameter measured by the meter; an analytics circuit configured to: store a real point object representing the real point; store a meter object representing the meter, the meter object comprising a points attribute that lists one or more point objects associated with the meter object including at least the real point object; and store a virtual point object representing a virtual point, the virtual point corresponding to a second physical parameter not measured by the meter; and 3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Johnson Controls Technology Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,083 3 update the points attribute in the meter object to list the virtual point object as one of the point objects associated with the meter object.4 receive a data sample of the real point from the meter; calculate a value of the virtual point; and calculate a metric based on the data sample of the real point and the value of the virtual point; and a system manager configured to control building equipment using the metric to affect the first physical parameter and the second physical parameter. Prior Art Name5 Reference Date Hedley US 2010/0286937 A1 Nov. 11, 2010 REJECTIONS6 AT ISSUE Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hedley. Final Act. 4–9. 4 Should prosecution continue, we suggest the Examiner require the claims be amended to delete this extraneous, interior period. 5 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 6 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,083 4 ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections. We add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 1–20: ANTICIPATION BY HEDLEY7. A. Group I: Independent Claims 1 and 8. Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia: an analytics circuit configured to: . . . store a virtual point object representing a virtual point, the virtual point corresponding to a second physical parameter not measured by the meter; . . . calculate a metric based on the data sample of the real point and the value of the virtual point; and 7 We discuss the claims as grouped by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 6. Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,083 5 a system manager configured to control building equipment using the metric to affect the first physical parameter and the second physical parameter. Claim 1 (Appellant’s emphasis, Appeal Br. 8). Independent Claim 8 recites commensurate limitations. The Examiner finds Hedley discloses “an analytics circuit configured to . . . store a virtual point object representing a virtual point, the virtual point corresponding to a second physical parameter not measured by the meter.” Final Act 5 (citing Hedley, ¶¶ 96–100). Appellant quotes Hedley as disclosing: “[t]he mediator 1102 may be installed directly into the existing metering infrastructure to retrieve available metering data.” Appeal Br. 8–9 (quoting Hedley, ¶ 96) (Appellant’s emphasis). Appellant cites Hedley as disclosing that mediator 1102 is: “a Richards-Zeta Mediator 2500[] that provides a connectivity interface for connecting to one or more meters and sub-systems in a facility” and that “mediator 1102 is installed and connected to on-site utility meters ... mediator 1102 is used to collect utility data from each of the meters and sub- meters in a building.” Appeal Br. 9 (quoting Hedley, ¶¶ 75, 83). Based on this disclosure, Appellant argues: “it is clear that the mediator 1102 of Hedley retrieves metering data from meters (i.e., data that is measured by the meters) and does not correspond to a physical parameter that is not measured by a meter.” Id. The Examiner finds the claimed “virtual point” is not defined. Ans. 9 (“[t]he ‘virtual point’ is not specific defined what kind of data/parameter represent only claimed as a data not measured by the meter.”). Whereas the claims recite “the virtual point corresponding to a second physical parameter Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,083 6 not measured by the meter,” the Examiner re-words the claims to find: “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, any data not correspond from the meter can interprets as a data not from the meter (virtual point).” Therefore, the Examiner finds: “Hedley discloses, such limitation, for example, in abstract, 11A, Fig. 25, Par. [0096]-[0100], [0134], [250].” Ans. 9. The Examiner interprets Figure 11A as disclosing mediator 1102 that receives data from electricity, natural gas, and water meters, which the Examiner finds is the claimed “meter object” and finds mediator 1102 receives “performance data” from “Scorecards & Site Assessment,” the HVAC system, and the light system, which the Examiner finds is the claimed “data not from the meter (virtual data).” Ans. 9. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that: “[t]he “virtual point” is not specific defined what kind of data/parameter represent only claimed as a data not measured by the meter. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, any data not correspond from the meter can interprets as a data not from the meter (virtual point).” Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 9). Appellant contends Claim 1 recites “the virtual point corresponding to a second physical parameter not measured by the meter.” Id. Accordingly, Appellant argues the claimed “virtual point” is not merely “any data not correspond from the meter,” as found by the Examiner. Rather the claimed “‘virtual point’” corresponds to physical parameters of a building management system that are not measured by a meter.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant defines a “virtual point” as “a point that is not directly measured by the meters 602 but rather Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,083 7 is calculated or simulated based on one or more real points, other virtual points, and/or other parameters or values.” Reply Br. 3 (quoting Spec., ¶ 82). Appellant further discloses: a building may include a first space served by a first meter and a second space served by a second meter. The first meter may collect a first real point for the first space corresponding to a physical parameter (e.g., power consumption), but the second meter may not be configured to collect data for that physical parameter. In such a situation, a second virtual point corresponding to the physical parameter in the second space may be created under the second meter by creating a virtual point object associated with a meter object for the second meter. Id. (quoting Spec., ¶ 88). Appellant argues a person of ordinary skill would not recognize the claimed “virtual point” as any data not provided by a meter. Id. Appellant further argues the Examiner does not provide any rationale for the assertion that “performance data,” i.e., “Scorecards & Site Assessment,” is the same as the claimed “virtual point,” i.e., a calculated version of a physical parameter that is determined by a meter. Id. Appellant’s Specification defines the claimed “real point”: As used herein, the term “real point” refers to a point that is measured or observed by one or more of the meters 602. A real point may represent a physical parameter of the building and/or building equipment served by BMS 600 (e.g., a temperature point measured by a temperature sensor of the meters 602, a power consumption measured by a power meter of the meters 602, a flow rate measured by a flow meter of the meters 602, etc.). Spec., ¶ 82. Appellant’s Specification also clearly defines the claimed “virtual point”: Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,083 8 Conversely, the term “virtual point” refers to a point that is not directly measured by the meters 602 but rather is calculated or simulated based on one or more real points, other virtual points, and/or other parameters or values. Spec., ¶ 82. Thus, we find the Examiner finding that the claimed “virtual point” is not defined (Ans. 9) to be clear error. The Examiner maps the claimed “virtual point” onto Hedley’s disclosure of “Scorecards & Site Assessment” as disclosed in Hedley, Figure 11A. Ans. 9. Hedley discloses a “Room Summary Scorecard” which “contains ranking of room portfolios within a facility/building based on comparing their actual performance against the facility/building service level objectives-i.e. comfort, efficiency, and operations.” Hedley, ¶ 216. Hedley further discloses a “Room Detail Scorecard” which “shows each individual room, organized by air handle and the pass/fail ratings and indication of which operational data led to failure ranking.” Hedley, ¶ 217. Neither “ranking of room portfolios,” nor “pass/fail ratings,” represent a physical parameter that may be calculated, or simulated, to be equivalent to a value reported by a meter. Thus, we find the claimed virtual point is not fairly disclosed by Hedley’s scorecard. Thus, we find the prior art fails to disclose the claimed virtual point as recited in each independent Claim 1, 8, and 15. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appeal 2021-003414 Application 16/052,083 9 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 102(a)(1) Hedley 1–20 REVERSED