Ex Parte BurrowsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201612524534 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation