Breezometer Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020002092 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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.
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