Ex Parte Davis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2019

15468839 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/468,839 03/24/2017
133690 7590 01/30/2019
Goodhue, Coleman & Owens, P.C.
12951 University Ave
Suite 201
Clive, IA 50325
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas G. Davis
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.
Tom Davis-P0002 9668
EXAMINER
DALBO, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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):
docketing@goodhue.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS G. DA VIS 1
Appeal2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Thomas G. Davis. Appeal
Brief, 4.
Appeal 2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant's subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
Claim 1 : A method of collecting and sharing envelope
efficiency of a building structure on a comparative basis, the method
compnsmg:
collecting HVAC equipment state information from HVAC
equipment associated with the building structure;
collecting information about the building structure including the
square footage of conditioned space within the building;
associating indoor temperature data and outdoor temperature data with
the HV AC equipment state information;
determining using a processor, heat loss for the building structure
using the indoor temperature data, the outdoor temperature data, and the
HV AC equipment
state information;
determining using the processor, the envelope efficiency for the
building structure using the heat loss and the square footage of the
conditioned spaced within
the building;
displaying envelope efficiency for the building structure in
comparison to a plurality of other building structures to show the envelope
efficiency for the building
structure on the comparative basis.
2
Appeal 2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Roy
Arensmeier et al.
hereinafter "Arensmeier"
us 2015/0261229
us 2014/0266755
Steinberg et al. US 2010/0070234
hereinafter "Steinberg"
Gilbert US 2014/0379298
Zou et al. US 2011/0031322
hereinafter "Zou"
Fadell et al.
hereinafter "Fadell"
Carlin et al.
hereinafter "Carlin"
Koop
Davis
us 2013/0204440
us 2013/0275263
US 9,443,043 Bl
US 7,072,727 Bl
THE REJECTIONS
Sept. 17, 2015
Sept. 18, 2014
Mar. 18, 2010
Dec. 25, 2014
Feb. 10,2011
Aug. 8, 2013
Oct. 17, 2013
Sept. 13, 2016
Jul. 4, 2006
1. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (See Final
Office Action, 2-9.)
3
Appeal 2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
2. Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 USC §103 over Roy in view
of Arensmeier (see Brief pages 33-44; Final Office Action, 9--14)).
3. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 USC §103 over Roy in view of
Arensmeier (see Brief page 44; Final Office Action, 14).
4. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 USC§ 103 over Roy in view of
Arensmeier and Steinberg (see Brief pages 44-45; Final Office Action 15-
18).
5. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 3 5 USC § 103 over Roy in view of
Arensmeier and Gilbert. (See Final Office Action, 18-23)
6. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC §103 over Roy in view of
Arensmeier and Zou. (See Final Office Action, 23-27)
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC §103 over Roy in view of
Arensmeier and Fadell (see Brief page 68)).
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC §103 over Roy in view of
Arensmeier and Carlin (See Final Office Action, 28)).
9. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC§ 103 over Roy in view
of Arensmeier and Koop. (See Final Office Action, 29--30)
4
Appeal 2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC§ 103 under 35 USC§ 103 over Roy
in view of Arensmeier and Davis (See Final Office Action, 31 ).
ANALYSIS
For purposes of this appeal, we address separately argued claims, and
the remaining claims stand or fall with the argued claims, consistent with 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We thus consider claims 1, 15, and 16.
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that with regard to the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. §101, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that claims
1-16 are patent ineligible for the reasons discusses hereafter. With regard to
the prior art rejections, we agree with the Examiner's stated position in the
record and adopt it as our own.
Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner's rejections on appeal
and affirm.
Rejection 1
The PTO published revised guidance on the application of§ 101. See
USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under that guidance, our
analysis follows. We first look to whether the claim recites:
5
Appeal 2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
Claim 1 is directed to method steps directed to mental processes
(observation, e.g., collecting HVAC equipment state information) and
mathematical relationships (e.g., determining heat loss using a processor).
As such, claim 1 recites a judicial exception, and we then discern whether
claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application using one or more of the considerations laid out by the
courts. We conclude that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application, and within this context, we agree with the
Examiner's application of certain case law discussed in the record by the
Examiner as applicable herein. See, e.g., Ans. 3-8. Finally, we agree with
the Examiner's finding that the claim elements "are well-understood,
6
Appeal 2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
routine, and conventional in the art." Id. at 8; Final Act. 4. Although the
Appellant argues, e.g., (1) that "collecting HV AC equipment state
information" and "associating indoor temperature data and outdoor
temperature data with the HV AC equipment state information" are
unconventional steps, App. Br. 20-21, and (2) that "an outside temperature
sensor" and "a sensor for determining cycling on and off HV AC equipment"
are "unconventional limitations," id. at 26-27, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's determination that they are not, see Ans. 8
( citing evidence), 10 ( citing evidence), 14 ( citing evidence), 20 ( citing
evidence). As such, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that claim 1 is
patent ineligible.
With regard to claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a system that includes
a sensor for determining cycling on and off of the HV AC equipment, as well
as other elements having similar language as that recited in claim 1. To the
extent the claim 15 is similar to claim 1, we make the same determinations
as made with claim 1, discussed, supra. With regard to the additional
element of use of a sensor recited in claim 15, such an element likewise does
not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and therefore
claim 15 is patent ineligible.
With regard to claim 16, claim 16 is a method claim similar to method
claim 1 but specifies use of a microphone that collects audio of the HV AC
equipment. In a similar manner as discussed with regard to the sensor
recited in claim 15, use of a microphone likewise does not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application, and therefore claim 16 is patent
ineligible.
7
Appeal 2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that
claims 1-16 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Rejections 2-10
We note that Appellants do not separately argue the claims that
depend upon claim 1. Claims 2-14 either directly or indirectly depend upon
claim 1. These claims thus stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. §
4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the rejection
of claim 1 for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the record,
particularly as stated in the Examiner's reply to argument beginning on page
20 of the Answer, which we incorporate as our own. We thus affirm
Rejections 2-10 for the reasons provided by the Examiner therein.
We note that independent claims 15 and 16 are rejected in Rejections
5 and 6, respectively. Appellants' argument regarding the combination of
Roy in view of Arensmeier remain unpersuasive for the same reasons relied
upon involving the rejection of claim 1. 2 We thus affirm the rejection of
claims 15 and 16.
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
2 The Examiner relies upon Gilbert for teaching the aspect of claim 15
pertaining to use of the sensor. Final Act. 22. The Examiner relies upon Zou
for teaching the aspect of claim 16 pertaining to use of a microphone. Final
Act. 26. We agree with the Examiner's factual findings and position as
stated in the record.
8
Appeal 2018-009155
Application 15/468,839
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
9