Breezometer Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 20212020002092 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/289,683 10/10/2016 Ran KORBER 170274 9041 86778 7590 05/28/2021 Law Office of Joseph L. Felber 5 HaNofar St., Box 2085 Raanana, 4366404 ISRAEL EXAMINER ENAD, CHRISTINE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2811 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2021 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com felberip@gmail.com uspto@felberip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAN KORBER, ZIV LAUTMAN, and EMIL FISHER ____________ Appeal 2020-002092 Application 15/289,683 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, 8–10, 12, 13, 15–18, 20–22, 24– 26, and 29–31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Breezometer Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-002092 Application 15/289,683 2 BACKGROUND The invention relates to generating location-specific air quality scores. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 14. Claim 1 reads: l. A computerized method for generating air quality scores based on at least one location, a predetermined perimeter, and at least one time parameter, comprising: identifying, by a server, at least one air pollution source within the predetermined perimeter around the at least one location, wherein the predetermined perimeter is a predetermined geometric shape defined geometrically with respect to the at least one location, wherein said identifying comprises querying a data source to obtain the at least one air pollution source that is located within the predetermined perimeter around the at least one location, wherein the at least one air pollution source is a source emitting air pollution that is selected from the group consisting of: heavy transportation, generating stations, factories, and incineration of garbage; extracting, by the server, an air quality score range based on the at least one location from at least one data source; identifying, by the server, at least one environmental variable based on the at least one location and the at least one time parameter, wherein said identifying the at least one environment variable comprises extracting the at least one environmental variable an external server, wherein the at least one environmental variable is any of: meteorological parameters, topographic parameters, and traffic parameters; simulating, by the server, at least one air pollution measurement for the at least one location, wherein said simulating is performed based on the at least one environmental variable and the at least one air pollution source, wherein said simulating is further based on historical environmental variables associated with the at least one air pollution source, whereby automatically estimating an air pollution measurement for the at least one location using data available about the at least one air pollution source; and generating, by the server, at least one air quality score respective of the air quality score range, wherein the at least one air quality score is based on the at least one air pollution Appeal 2020-002092 Application 15/289,683 3 measurement. Appeal Br. 35 (Claims Appendix). Independent claim 13 generally recites a system configured to perform the method recited in claim 1. Claim 31 essentially recites a method similar to that of claim 1 but applied to two locations. Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1 or 13. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3–6, 8–10, 12, 13, 15–18, 20–22, 24, and 29–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Martin,2 Burfeind,3 Page,4 and Wong.5 II. Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Martin, Burfeind, Page, Wong, and Rakshit.6 OPINION The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described 2 US 2013/0174646 A1, published July 11, 2013. 3 US 2007/0112511 A1, published May 17, 2007. 4 US 2011/0009986 A1, published January 13, 2011. 5 US 2012/0092649 A1, published April 19, 2012. 6 US 8,744,766 B2, issued June 3, 2014. Appeal 2020-002092 Application 15/289,683 4 or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Further, “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Each independent claim on appeal recites, inter alia, identifying an air pollution source “selected from the group consisting of: heavy transportation, generating stations, factories, and incineration of garbage.” Those claims additionally recite simulating an air pollution measurement based in part on historical environmental variables associated with the identified pollution source. In rejecting each of the independent claims, the Examiner finds the combined teachings of Martin, Burfeind, and Page lack disclosure of the recited type of pollution source. Final Act. 5 (“Martin, Burfeind and Page disclose all the limitations except the type of pollution source, a second location and the geometrically defined shape as a perimeter.”). The Examiner finds Wong discloses measurement of air quality associated with “heavy transportation, generating stations, factories, and incineration of garbage.” Id. (citing Wong ¶ 54). In light of these findings, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “modify the method and system of Martin and incorporate different source locations and pollution types.” Id. Appeal 2020-002092 Application 15/289,683 5 Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner’s above-mentioned obviousness determination based on Wong is unsupported by evidence. Appeal Br. 19–20. We agree. Wong generally relates to mapping airborne concentrations in an emission plume. Wong ¶ 15. At the paragraph relied upon by the Examiner, Wong states “the emission source may be a single leak in a pipeline, or a cluster of leaks close together.” Wong ¶ 54. Wong further identifies soil- covered landfills as an example of diffuse emission sources. Id. Nowhere in the passage cited by the Examiner does Wong refer to pollution sources associated with heavy transportation, generating stations, factories, or incineration of garbage. Nor does the Examiner point to any other teaching in Wong addressing these recited sources. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner’s finding that Wong teaches measurement of air quality associated with “heavy transportation, generating stations, factories, and incineration of garbage” is unsupported by the evidence presented. Appellant additionally argues the Examiner fails to sufficiently identify a reason to modify Martin’s method to include identifying a pollution source selected from heavy transportation, generating stations, factories, and incineration of garbage. Appeal Br. 21. As noted, Wong relates to mapping airborne concentrations in an emission plume. Wong ¶ 15. Martin, on the other hand, concerns techniques for monitoring indoor air quality in residential environments. Martin ¶ 16. The Examiner states it would have been obvious to modify Martin to “incorporate different . . . pollution types,” but provides no explanation as to how or why one of ordinary skill would have adapted Martin’s indoor air monitoring techniques Appeal 2020-002092 Application 15/289,683 6 to include information concerning the pollution sources such as heavy transportation, generating stations, factories, or incineration of garbage. Absent evidence sufficient to support the Examiner’s finding regarding Wong’s disclosure of specified pollution sources, and further absent any articulated reason to incorporate such sources in Martin’s method and system for monitoring indoor residential air quality, the Examiner’s obviousness determination as to all claims, on this record, is conclusory. The Examiner does not rely on any of the additionally cited references in a manner which would overcome the foregoing deficiencies. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejections are not sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–6, 8–10, 12, 13, 15–18, 20–22, 24–26, and 29–31 is reversed. Appeal 2020-002092 Application 15/289,683 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–6, 8–10, 12, 13, 15– 18, 20–22, 24, 29–31 103 Martin, Burfeind, Page, Wong 1, 3–6, 8–10, 12, 13, 15– 18, 20–22, 24, 29–31 25, 26 103 Martin, Burfeind, Page, Wong, Rakshit 25, 26 Overall outcome 1, 3–6, 8–10, 12, 13, 15– 18, 20–22, 24–26, 29– 31 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation