Ex Parte Calcaterra et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 9, 201412122453 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation