Ex Parte Calcaterra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 9, 2014

12122453 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JEFFREY ALAN CALCATERRA,
STEVEN MICHAEL MILLER, and
HUMBERTO GUTIERREZ-RIVAS
________________

Appeal 2012-010930
Application 12/122,453
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method for mapping outlets. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method for mapping outlets, the method comprising the steps of:
providing an electronic record of one or more rooms with outlets to be
mapped;
Appeal 2012-010930
Application 12/122,453

2
installing a module in each of a plurality of outlets to be mapped;
preparing a diagram of a circuit box showing and identifying circuit
interrupts for a plurality of electrical circuits;
triggering a probe to propagate a signal at one of said circuit interrupts
detectable by said modules over a circuit and to provide circuit information,
said circuit information tied to said circuit interrupts identified in said
diagram;
retrieving said circuit information from said modules; and
associating said circuit information from each module with a
corresponding outlet on said electronic record of said one or more rooms.

The Reference
Blades US 7,057,401 B2 June 6, 2006
The Rejection
Claims 1–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Blades.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection. We need to address only the sole
independent claim, i.e., claim 1.
Claim 1 requires “installing a module in each of a plurality of outlets
to be mapped.”
Blades sequentially connects a portable circuit analyzer (PCA) (which
the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ module
(Ans. 5)) to each load, fixture, outlet and appliance (col. 3, ll. 34–49; col. 6,
ll. 40–44; col. 8, ll. 26–31).
The Examiner argues that the Appellants’ claim 1 encompasses
installing one module sequentially in a plurality of outlets (Ans. 10).
Claim 1’s recitations that a signal is “detectable by said modules” and
circuit information is retrieved “from said modules” indicate that the
claimed method requires more than one module.
Appeal 2012-010930
Application 12/122,453

3
The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
used multiple PCAs simultaneously for faster testing and would have
modified Blades’ load center interface (LCI), which “measures the voltage
drop across each Branch Circuit Breaker for the purpose of determining
which Branch Circuit the load is on” (col. 12, ll. 9–12), to determine which
PCA is the source of each of multiple signals (Ans. 8–9).
That argument is unpersuasive as being unsupported by evidence.
The Examiner’s mere speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie
case of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967);
In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962).
Claim 1 also requires “triggering a probe to propagate a signal at one
of said circuit interrupts.”
The Examiner points out that Blades’ PCA (whose microprocessor the
Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ probe (Ans. 5))
propagates a signal (rectified load, col. 12, ll. 3–4), and argues that because,
when the signal is applied, the LCI (which the Examiner relies upon as
corresponding to the Appellants’ circuit interrupt (Ans. 10–11)) “measures
the voltage drop across each Branch Circuit Breaker” (col. 12, ll. 9–10), the
signal is propagated at a circuit interrupt (Ans. 10–11).
Blades’ rectified load signal is propagated at the PCA (col. 12, ll. 3–
4). The LCI measures the propagated signal’s voltage drop at the circuit
breaker for the branch circuit the load is on (col. 12, ll. 9–12).
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient
to support a conclusion of prima facie obviousness of the Appellants’
claimed method. See Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017 (“A rejection based on
Appeal 2012-010930
Application 12/122,453

4
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art”). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Blades is
reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

cdc