Ex Parte Burrows

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12524534 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

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.
12/524,534 02/02/2010 Andrew Roland Burrows 09-820-WO-US 9534
20306 7590 11/01/2016
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
3 2ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
GAMI, TEJAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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 ANDREW ROLAND BURROWS
Appeal 2015-0076341
Application 12/524,534
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 24-43, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as i20 Water Limited.
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a controller and control system for a
pressure reducing valve supplying water to a consumer region. Spec. 1,11.
5—8. Appellant characterizes his invention as:
[A] dynamic system for adjusting the output pressure of a
pressure reducing valve (“PRV”) using parameters that are
revised at intervals, in which logged, time-stamped PRV output
pressure data is sent at intervals to a remote server, and in which
time-stamped pressure data from a critical point in the system is
also sent to the remote server, where the logged, time-stamped
pressure data from the PRV and the critical point are used to
calculate revised parameters at intervals (representing a required
output pressure at the PRV as a function of a value such as flow
rate), which the remote server sends at intervals to the controller
over a wireless communications network.
App Br. 5—6. There are three independent claims 24, 34, and 35, all of
which are at issue. Although the independent claims are largely similar,
they having meaningful differences in scope which impact our analysis as
set forth below. The complete recitations of these claims are found in the
Claims Appendix submitted with Appellant’s opening brief. See App. Br.
22—28 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 35—43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yonnet (U.S. 5,460,196, issued Oct. 24, 1995).
Claims 24—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Yonnet and Ephrat et al. (U.S. 2005/0016593 Al, published
Jan. 27, 2005) (“Ephrat”).
2
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
(1) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 24 as
obvious, by finding the cited combination teaches, suggests, or otherwise
renders obvious a remote data processing system configured to:
(a) “receive critical point pressure data from a critical point
pressure sensor adjacent the critical point, the critical point pressure
data being representative of the pressure at the critical point at
moments in time and including time stamp information”; and
(b) “use the logged data received from the controller and the
critical point pressure data so as to calculate revised parameters to be
transmitted at intervals to the controller, the revised parameters
representing a required output pressure from the pressure reducing
valve as a revised function of the measured value”?
(2) Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited combination
teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “the measured value is the
flow rate” as recited in dependent claim 26?
(3) Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited combination
teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious a controller configured “to
receive revised parameters from the remote data processing system at
intervals, the revised parameters representing a required output pressure
from the pressure reducing valve as a revised function of the flow rate” as
recited in claim 34?
(4) Has the Examiner erred in finding that Yonnet discloses
calculating, at intervals, revised sets of parameters using
the logged data representative of the output pressure from the
pressure reducing valve, and the stored critical point pressure
data . . . each revised set of parameters representing a required
3
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
output pressure from the pressure reducing valve as a function
of the flow rate
as recited in claim 35?
ANALYSIS
First Issue—Claim 24
Independent claim 24 stands rejected as being obvious over Yonnet
and Ephrat. Final Act. 9—13. Appellant contends that two claim limitations
are absent from the cited references, each of which is separately emphasized
in the following reproduction of claim 24:
24. An apparatus for adjusting the output pressure of a
pressure reducing valve supplying fluid to a consumer region, in
order to establish a desired minimum fluid pressure at a critical
point in the consumer region, the apparatus comprising:
a controller and a data processing system remote from the
controller;
wherein the controller comprises a processor, a data
storage unit, a first input for a signal representative of a measured
value which is used in determining the required output pressure
of the pressure reducing valve;
a control output for providing a signal to an adjusting
mechanism for adjusting the output pressure of the pressure
reducing valve;
a second input for receiving, from an output pressure
sensor, a signal representative of the output pressure of the
pressure reducing valve;
a data logging module for logging data representative of
the output pressure of the pressure reducing valve at moments in
time, together with time stamp information; and
a communications module for receiving data from and
sending data to the remote data processing system over a wireless
communications network;
the data storage unit stores parameters representing a
required output pressure from the pressure reducing valve as a
function of the measured value; and the processor is configured
4
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
to process (i) data representative of the measured value and (ii)
the stored parameters, so that a signal is provided from the
control output in order to cause the pressure reducing valve to be
adjusted to provide the required output pressure corresponding
to the measured value;
the controller is configured to use the communications
module to communicate data logged by the data logging module
to the remote data processing system over the wireless
communications network at intervals;
the remote data processing system is configured to receive
the logged data from the controller at intervals; to receive critical
point pressure data from a critical point pressure sensor
adjacent the critical point, the critical point pressure data being
representative of the pressure at the critical point at moments
in time and including time stamp information; to use the logged
data received from the controller and the critical point pressure
data so as to calculate revised parameters to be transmitted at
intervals to the controller, the revised parameters representing a
required output pressure from the pressure reducing valve as a
revised function of the measured value; and to transmit the
revised parameters to the controller over the wireless
communications network at intervals; and
the controller is configured to use the communications
module to receive the revised parameters from the remote data
processing system at intervals over the wireless communications
network; to store the revised parameters in the data storage unit;
and to use the revised parameters to provide a signal from the
control output in order to cause the pressure reducing valve to be
adjusted.
App. Br. 22—23.
The Examiner finds Yonnet teaches a remote data processing system
configured “to receive critical point pressure data from a critical point
pressure sensor adjacent the critical point, the critical point pressure data
being representative of the pressure at the critical point at moments in time
and including time stamp information” at column 11, lines 1—5 and in
5
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
Figures 5 and 8, which, according to the Examiner, show time-stamped
measurements of critical node pressure. Ans. 13—14,26—27.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding. App. Br. 13—14.
Appellant argues Yonnet contains no explicit teaching of any remote data
processing system, and the feature of the critical point pressure data
including time stamp information is not known from Yonnet. App. Br. 13.
Appellant further argues Yonnet merely describes a single transmission of a
minimum pressure condition from a critical point which causes the system to
switch to an alternate state. Id. According to Appellant, Figure 5 and Figure
8 of Yonnet are not sufficient because they relate to a monitoring system that
is separate from Yonnet’s fluid-pressure control apparatus. Reply Br. 5—6.
We agree with the Examiner because Figure 5 of Yonnet, reproduced
below, teaches measuring and recording time-stamped readings of pressure
at a critical node at various time intervals over several days. The fact that
these measurements are presented in a computer-generated graph shows
these measurements are delivered to a processing system.
jkH
AjjfyKfc-
Ns i
PSW &***&&*&%
ii ' Sift *§ ! *3 S *•<* U 1 TKs t& fVl it
6
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that a remote data
processing system is not taught or suggested by Yonnet because, as noted by
the Examiner, Yonnet teaches the use of telemetry to transfer and share data
within the system. Ans. 13, see also Yonnet, col. 4,1. 16 (data may be
accessed “either directly or by telemetry”). Nor are we persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that the measurements shown in Figure 5 are produced
by a monitoring system that is separate from Yonnet’s fluid-pressure control
apparatus. This argument ignores the nature of the obviousness inquiry.
The test of obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a
whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention.” In re Gorman,
933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As noted by
the Examiner, Yonnet teaches the use of critical point pressure
measurements to provide pressure signals from the critical point when a low
pressure situation is encountered. Yonnet, col. 11,11. 1—5. These critical
point pressure measurements are used to control water pressure. Id. Thus,
even if we were to agree with Appellant’s assertion that the measurements
depicted in Figure 5 are produced by a separate monitoring system, taken as
a whole, the teachings of Yonnet suggest that critical point pressure
measurements (such as those depicted in Figure 5) may be taken from both
within the fluid-pressure control apparatus and from a separate monitoring
apparatus. As such, we find that the Examiner has not erred in finding
Yonnet teaches or suggests a “remote data processing system configured to
receive critical point pressure data from a critical point pressure sensor
adjacent the critical point, the critical point pressure data being
representative of the pressure at the critical point at moments in time and
including time stamp information.”
7
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
Appellant also contends the Examiner committed error because
Yonnet does not teach or suggest the limitation “use the logged data
received from the controller and the critical point pressure data so as to
calculate revised parameters to be transmitted at intervals to the controller,
the revised parameters representing a required output pressure from the
pressure reducing valve as a revised function of the measured value.” The
Examiner finds that Yonnet discloses this limitation, citing numerous
passages including column 3, lines 24—29 and column 11, lines 1—5, 8—10.
Final Act. 12, Ans. 13—14.
Appellant contends that Yonnet does not teach a dynamic apparatus
such as that of claim 24 that is responsive to changing circumstances. App.
Br. 12. Although Appellant acknowledges that Yonnet teaches using stored
pressure/time profiles to regulate a pressure valve based on factors such as
changing seasons, Appellant contends that Yonnet is merely a static system
in this regard. App. Br. 12. According to Appellant, Yonnet’s description at
column 3, lines 24—29 is insufficient because it merely indicates that flow
measurements may be averaged over time to produce pressure calculations.
App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and we note
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s citation to the teachings of
column 11 of Yonnet. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that column 11 of
Yonnet teaches that the critical point pressure measurements are used to
change the pressure-time profile used in the system. Ans. 14 (“[T]he system
may bring into use a different pressure-time profile or may boost the
downstream pressure by a predetermined amount”), citing Yonnet col. 11,11.
1—5. Appellant acknowledges Yonnet’s pressure-time profiles modify
8
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
pressure in the system as a function of time.2 App. Br. 12 (“Yonnet
discloses that the control unit 24 may switch from one stored pressure/time
profile to another . . . Thus, we agree with the Examiner Yonnet’s
teaching of substituting a different pressure-time profile based on critical
point pressure measurements renders obvious the limitation of “use the
logged data received from the controller and the critical point pressure data
so as to calculate revised parameters to be transmitted at intervals to the
controller, the revised parameters representing a required output pressure
from the pressure reducing valve as a revised function of the measured
value.”
Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner has committed error
in rejecting claim 24 as obvious over Yonnet and Ephrat, we sustain the
rejection of claim 24. Appellant presents no additional arguments for
patentability of dependent claims 25 and 27—33 which, therefore, stand or
fall together with claim 24. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of
those claims.
Second Issue—Claim 26
Claim 26 depends from claim 24 and additionally recites that “the
controller has a flow rate module which provides data representative of fluid
flow rate from the pressure reducing valve into the consumer region, and the
measured value is the flow rate.” Thus, claim 26, when read in conjunction
2 Claim 24 broadly recites that the “revised parameters represent^ a required
output pressure from the pressure reducing value as a revised function of the
measured value.” In the remaining two independent claims 34 and 35, the
revised parameters are a function of flow rate. See App. Br. 25, 27 (Claims
Appendix) (“function of the flow rate”). Claim 24 is not limited in this way
and claim 25 makes clear that the measured value may include time. App.
Br. 23 (Claims Appendix) (“the measured value is time”).
9
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
with claim 24, requires that the “revised parameters represent^ a required
output pressure from the pressure reducing valve as a revised function of
[the flow rate].” App. Br. 22—23 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds
that Yonnet teaches this limitation, citing column 5, lines 29—35. Ans. 20.
Appellant argues there is no suggestion in Yonnet of adapting a controller
that uses pressure/time profiles to express a revised required output pressure
as a function of flow rate. App Br. 16. Appellant further argues that,
because Yonnet’s use of a minimum pressure signal from a critical point as
taught in column 11 is based on time-based modulation and not in the
context of flow modulation, it does not render claim 26 obvious. App. Br.
17.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not identified any
portion of Yonnet’s description in which “the measured value is the flow
rate” and the revised parameter is a function of the flow rate as required by
claim 26. The passage cited by the Examiner amount to nothing more than a
recognition that flow rate impacts pressure drop, along with a general
statement of a need to manage these drops in pressure. Yonnet col. 5,11. 29—
35. This limited disclosure is insufficient to establish obviousness of claim
26, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Third Issue—Claim 34
Appellant argues the cited combination fails to teach or suggest “to
receive revised parameters from the remote data processing system at
intervals, the revised parameters representing a required output pressure
from the pressure reducing valve as a revised function of the flow rate” as
recited in claim 34. More specifically, Appellant argues that Yonnet is a
10
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
static system with respect to its flow modulation embodiments, and that its
time-based modulation embodiments do not represent required output
pressure as a revised function of flow rate. App. Br. 18. The Examiner
finds Yonnet teaches this limitation because it describes that fluid flow
measurements can be averaged over time and used in pressure calculation
(citing Yonnet col. 3,11. 24—29), and also because it teaches using a control
function for an appropriate period of time to measure changes in pressure
and bring about a required change based on the measurement (citing Yonnet
col. 4,11. 6-12). Ans. 19.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Neither passage cited by
the Examiner makes any mention of a parameters representing a required
output pressure being expressed as function of flow rate. The cited passage
in column 3 merely teaches that an average flow values may be computed
and used as a basis for pressure calculations. The second passage cited by
the Examiner does not mention flow rate, and therefore does not render
obvious the aforementioned claim limitation. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Fourth Issue—Claim 35
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yonnet. Appellant argues Yonnet does not disclose
calculating, at intervals, revised sets of parameters using the
logged data representative of the output pressure from the
pressure reducing valve, and the stored critical point pressure
data . . . each revised set of parameters representing a required
output pressure from the pressure reducing valve as a function
of the flow rate.
11
Appeal 2015-007634
Application 12/524,534
The findings of the Examiner and the argument presented by Appellant are
each substantially the same as those discussed above in connection with
claim 34. Accordingly, for those same reasons, we agree with Appellant the
Examiner has not established that Yonnet discloses this claim limitation, and
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 24—25 and 27—33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 26 and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) and of claims 35—43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) are reversed.3
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3 Because we are persuaded by at least one of Appellant’s arguments, we do
not reach Appellant’s additional arguments for these claims.
12