Ex Parte Stevenson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

12265116 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte THOMAS S. STEVENSON, JOHN C. VAN GORP, MATTHEW STANLAKE, VINCENT WRUCK, JACQUES VAN CAMPEN, and DOUGLAS COPE ____________ Appeal 2011-006157 Application 12/265,116 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006157 Application 12/265,116 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 14-18 (App. Br. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 1 follows: 1. A method of monitoring the operation of a load in an electrical power distribution system, said method comprising: selecting a parameter representing operation of said load, determining an expected characteristic of said parameter during normal operation of said load, said expected characteristic defining expected bounds for variations in said parameter as a function of a second parameter during normal operation of said load, storing said expected characteristic in a computer memory, measuring actual values of said parameter in said electrical power distribution system, storing said measured values, and comparing in a computer said measured values of said parameter with said expected characteristic to detect potential abnormal operation of said load and outputting from said computer the results of said comparison. Appeal 2011-006157 Application 12/265,116 3 The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention (Ans. 4). The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Paoletti (U.S. 2009/0109021) (Ans. 5-8). The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paoletti in view of Bergman (U.S. 4,878,142) (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paoletti in view of Cox (U.S. 2005/0273280) (Ans. 9). The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paoletti in view of Cmar (U.S. 5,566,084) (Ans. 9- 10). The Examiner rejected claims 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paoletti in view of Umeda (U.S. 5,463,545) (Ans. 11). FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings pertaining to the anticipation and obviousness rejections as set forth in the Answer (Ans. 5, et seq.). Appeal 2011-006157 Application 12/265,116 4 ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Paoletti discloses “determining an expected characteristic of said parameter during normal operation of said load, said expected characteristic defining expected bounds for variations in said parameter as a function of a second parameter during normal operation of said load,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added) and as similarly recited in independent claim 12? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 12 as obvious because Paoletti does not disclose the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 8). Appellants argue that Paoletti does not disclose the expected bounds of Fig. 2 of Appellants’ Specification wherein the “actual values exceed the upper bound 20 between points 23 and 24, which can be detected by comparing the value of the curve 22 at any given time t with the values of the bounds 20 and 21 at that same time t” (App. Br. 9-10). The Examiner concluded, however, that the claims “do not require that there be two values to form the bounds for each value of the parameter in time” (Ans. 13). The Examiner further found that Paoletti discloses multiple bounds because there are different bounds at different temperatures (id.). We agree with the Examiner. Although claim 1 recites more than one bound, it does not require more than one bound at any particular time. Moreover, Paoletti discloses multiple temperature bounds: “The system may also analyze historical data to develop maximum operating Appeal 2011-006157 Application 12/265,116 5 temperatures, above which, alarms will indicate the need for inspections and/or maintenance” (¶ [0014]). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejections of independent claims 1 and 12 as well as dependent claims 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17 and 18 because Appellants did not set forth any separate and different patentability arguments for the dependent claims (see App. Br. 11). Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 16 as obvious because Paoletti deals with a different problem than each of the secondary references (i.e., Bergman, Cox, Cmar, or Umeda) and, therefore, is not properly combinable with any of the secondary references (App. Br. 11-17). As explained by the Examiner, however, the references are properly combinable because they all deal with the problem of monitoring power distribution networks or electrical equipment (Ans. 15-18). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 16. The Examiner concluded that claims 1 and 12 are indefinite because “[i]t is unclear whether the comparing is in a computer, whether the expected characteristic is in a computer or whether both the comparing and expected characteristic are within the computer” (Ans. 4). Appellants argue that “the ‘comparing’ clause makes it clear that the comparing is done ‘in a computer,’ and it necessarily follows that the two items being compared must both be in the computer” (App. Br. 6). We agree with Appellants. Other portions of both claims 1 and 12 explicitly recite “storing said expected characteristic in a computer memory.” Because the expected characteristic is in a computer, a comparison of the expected characteristic Appeal 2011-006157 Application 12/265,116 6 with another value must be done in a computer. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 12 as indefinite. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18 as anticipated and claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 16 as obvious. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 12 as indefinite. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb