Ex Parte Bendig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2016

13084575 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/084,575 04/12/2011
62730 7590 04/14/2016
SAP SE
3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oliver Bendig
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.
2011P00022US 1358
EXAMINER
SHAH, KAMIN! S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2016 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):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVER BENDIG, KLAUS KISTL, and SANDRA MANGANO
Appeal2014-005372 1
Application 13/084,575
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-25, and 27, which consist
of all of the claims pending in this appeal. Claims 5, 16, and 26 have been
canceled. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants invent a method and system for simulating energy
consumed by a client for a current simulation period. Spec. i-f 1, Fig. 1. In
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SAP AG. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005372
Application 13/084,575
particular, for time slices of the simulation period with available profile
values representing consumed energy (i.e., actual realized energy
consumption profile values, Erealized), a processor retrieves the Erealized values
from memory. Id. at i-f 24. For time slices of the simulation period with
unavailable profile values representing consumed energy (i.e., unrealized
energy consumption profile values, Eunrealized), the processor retrieves from
memory energy consumption values for corresponding time slices of
consecutive previous calendar periods of time. Id. at i-f 25. If no such data
exists for the previous periods, the computer generates synthetic values
(Esynthetic) by estimating the unrealized consumption values according to
predicted arbitrary values thereby generating ratio of Erealized and Esynthetic· Id.
at i-fi-127-29, 41. Subsequently, the processor simulates the energy consumed
by the client for the simulation period according to Erealized, Eunrelaized, and
T"""'1 T1 ;.-TAI,...
1::1,synthetic· la. at 11 LU.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. An article of manufacture including a non-transitory
computer readable storage medium to physically store
instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the
computer to:
retrieve realized energy consumption profile values for
time slices of a simulation period;
retrieve prior realized energy consumption profile values
from corresponding time slices of consecutive previous
2
Appeal2014-005372
Application 13/084,575
calendar periods for time slices of the simulation period for
which the realized energy consumption profile values are not
available;
identify one or more time slices of the simulation period
for which the corresponding prior realized energy consumption
profile values are not available;
for the identified time slices, compute an estimation of
unrealized energy profile values by multiplying synthetic
profile values associated with the identified time slices by a
scaling factor, wherein the scaling factor is a ratio of actual
energy consumption and a corresponding consumption of a
synthetic profile value; and
simulate energy consumption for the simulation period
using the retrieved realized energy consumption profile values
of the simulation period, the retrieved prior realized energy
consumption profile values of the consecutive previous
calendar periods, and the estimated unrealized energy profile
values of the simulation period.
Carey
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2006/0161450 Al July 20, 2006
SAP Library, SAP ERP Central Component, Release 6.0 SP15,
Copyright 2009, available at
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_erp60/helpdata/en/3c/ld5934299ba662el
000009b38f83b/content.htm, retrieved 2012-12-10 (hereinafter as SAP).
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1--4, 12-15, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Carey.
3
Appeal2014-005372
Application 13/084,575
Claims 6-11 and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Carey and SAP.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 9-15. 2
Anticipation Rejection
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. We adopt as
our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the
appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2-12, Final Act. 2-19. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Carey does not describe estimating unrealized
energy profile values by multiplying synthetic profile values associated with
identified time slices by a scaling factor defined as a ratio of actual energy
consumption and a corresponding consumption of a synthetic profile value,
as recited in claim 1. Br. 11. According to Appellants, Carey discloses a
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 4, 2013), and the Answer (mailed
January 1, 2014) for their respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
4
Appeal2014-005372
Application 13/084,575
heating/cooling factor defined as an average increase in energy consumption
for each additional degree day, and calculated once a month by multiplying
the heating/cooling factor with the extrapolated monthly consumption. Id. at
12 (citing Carey i-fi-162, 118-122). In contrast, Appellants submit that the
claim scaling factor is calculated as a ratio of actual energy consumption and
a corresponding consumption of a synthetic profile value. Br. 11-12. This
argument is not persuasive.
At the outset, we note Appellants have not particularly rebutted the
Examiner's findings as set forth in the rejection. In particular, the Examiner
finds Carey's disclosure of historical data values for a particular client
describes the synthetic profile values. Ans. 8 (citing Carey i-fi-1 96, 99).
Likewise, the Examiner finds Carey's disclosure of a factor for modifying
the historical data values, wherein the factor is defined as the ratio of a
known energy consumption value (non-heating YB-1) and the energy
consumption value for a prior year (YB-2) to thereby yield estimated energy
consumption values not readily available for certain period of time,
describes the scaling ratio as set forth in claim 1. Id. at 10-11 (citing Carey
i-fi-f l 04--107, 110, 111 ). As correctly noted by the Examiner, the portions of
Carey discussed by Appellants are different from those relied upon in the
Answer. Id. at 10-11. Appellants have therefore failed to show error in the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2--4, 12-15, and 23-25, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
5
Appeal2014-005372
Application 13/084,575
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2--4, 12-15, and 23-25
fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Obviousness Rejection
Regarding the rejection of claims 6-11 and 17-22, Appellants argue
that SAP does not cure the noted deficiencies of Carey. Br. 15. This
argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, we do not find any
such deficiencies in Carey for SAP to remedy. Consequently, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 6-11 and 17-22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-25, and
27, as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6