Richard Lowenthal et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2021000398 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

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.
12/697,188 01/29/2010 Richard Lowenthal 8605.P018 1489
130093 7590 06/01/2021
Nicholson De Vos Webster & Elliott LLP
99 Almaden Boulevard
Suite 710
San Jose, CA 95113
EXAMINER
HARRINGTON, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ndwe_docketing@cardinal-ip.com
patent@ndwe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD LOWENTHAL, PRAVEEN MANDAL,
MILTON TORMEY, SRINIVAS RAO SWARNAPURI, and
JAMES SOLOMON
Appeal 2021-000398
Application 12/697,188
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–7. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee,
ChargePoint, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000398
Application 12/697,188
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to electric vehicle charging station host-definable
pricing. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent
claim pending, and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electric vehicle charging station network, comprising:
a plurality of electric vehicle charging stations belonging to
a plurality of charging station hosts, wherein each host
controls one or more of the plurality of electric vehicle
charging stations; and
a charging station network server that provides a single
interface that allows each of the plurality of hosts to:
define through the single interface a first access list that
includes a first plurality of access identifiers that
represent authorized access for use of a first plurality
of electric vehicle charging stations belonging to that
host, and define through the single interface a second
access list that includes a second plurality of access
identifiers that represent authorized access for use of
a second plurality of electric vehicle charging
stations belonging to that host, wherein the first
plurality of electric vehicle charging stations and the
second plurality of electric vehicle charging stations
are different, wherein authorization to use the first
plurality of electric vehicle charging stations
belonging to that host is limited to the first plurality
of access identifiers included on the first access list,
and wherein authorization to use the second plurality
of electric vehicle charging stations belonging to that
host is limited to the second plurality of access
identifiers included on the second access list,
define through the single interface a first pricing
specification for charging electric vehicles on the
first plurality of electric vehicle charging stations
belonging to that host, and define a second pricing
specification for charging electric vehicles on the
second plurality of electric vehicle charging stations
belonging to that host, wherein the first pricing
Appeal 2021-000398
Application 12/697,188
3
specification defines a first cost of use and that the
first access list applies to the first pricing
specification, and wherein the second pricing
specification defines a second cost of use and that the
second access list applies to the second pricing
specification, and
apply the first and second pricing specification to the first
and second plurality of electric vehicle charging
stations belonging to that host respectively.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows2:
Claims 1 and 3 as unpatentable over Pudar (US 2009/0210357 A1,
published Aug. 20, 2009), Littrell (US 2010/0161480 A1, published June 24,
2010), Graziano (US 2010/0145885 A1, published June 10, 2010), and
Proefke (US 2010/0274570 A1, published Oct. 28, 2010).
Claim 2 as unpatentable over Pudar, Littrell, Graziano, Proefke, and
Pollack (US 2009/0043520 A1, published Feb 12, 2009).
Claims 5–7 as unpatentable over Pudar, Littrell, Graziano, Proefke,
and Hafner (US 2009/0313174 A1, published Dec. 17, 2009).

OPINION
Claims 1 and 3
Claim 1 recites a “single interface” that allows each of the charging
station hosts to:
define through the single interface a first access list that includes
a first plurality of access identifiers that represent authorized
access for use of a first plurality of electric vehicle charging
stations belonging to that host, and define through the single

2 We refer to the publications only by the first named inventor.
Appeal 2021-000398
Application 12/697,188
4
interface a second access list that includes a second plurality of
access identifiers that represent authorized access for use of a
second plurality of electric vehicle charging stations belonging
to that host.
Appeal Br. 20–21.
The Specification describes that an “access list defines who can use a
particular charging station or charging station connection,” and indicates that
“Figure 10 illustrates an exemplary host definable pricing portion 230 of the
host portal 150 that allows hosts to create and/or modify access lists.” Spec.
¶¶ 77–78. The “single interface” is thus a computer user interface that is
used by a person to define an access list, by entering data or make selections.
The Examiner finds this recited defining of access lists, using this
“single interface” is not disclosed in the combination of Pudar and Littrell,
but is instead disclosed in Graziano (along with the second of the wherein
clauses recited), at paragraphs 34–36, 38, and 39. Final Act. 17; see also
Answer 4.
The Examiner then finds that Proefke also discloses the single
interface to define the access lists (along with the first wherein clause
recited), at paragraphs 13, 24, 29, and 30, at its “database.” See Final Act.
18.
The Examiner thus finds that both Graziano and Proefke disclose the
language that recites a server to “define through the single interface” the first
and second access lists, though they each disclose a different one of the two
“wherein” clauses that follow.
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that Graziano does not
describe this language of defining first and second access lists through a
single interface, contending “Graziano does not teach or suggest a customer
having access to one charging station of a utility and not another charging
Appeal 2021-000398
Application 12/697,188
5
station of the same utility,” and therefore the lists that are defined in
Graziano each are not an “access list” as claimed. Appeal Br. 11; see also
id. at 7–12.
In response, the Examiner contends, without citation, that “Graziano
has disclosed that a single interface, the AAA system, is used by the utilities
in order to create the lists, and wherein the AAA system authenticates a
user’s vehicle and determines if they are permitted to use a charging
station.” Answer 6.
We have reviewed paragraphs 34–36, 38, and 39 of Graziano, but find
no description which indicates there is any interface used to define access
lists. The cited passages describe a system that authenticates vehicles for
charging station use, but is silent on how the parameters used for
authentication are entered. See Graziano ¶¶ 34–36, 38, 39. Further,
Graziano does not even require a single system to perform this
authentication, which suggests no single interface for setting it up is
disclosed either. Id. ¶ 36 (“AAA System 110 is seen as a more central
device, to be shared among a number of electric utilities, although there is
nothing from preventing each utility from having its own AAA System.”).
The Examiner thus has not established with evidence that Graziano’s AAA
system provides a single interface for creating access lists, as claimed.
Instead, the Examiner has merely made an assertion that a single interface is
used for defining an access list, without establishing through the use of
evidence that this is so.
The Examiner further contends that a communication network,
disclosed in Graziano for communicating with the AAA system, is
encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “single
interface.” See Answer 11–14. We disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning,
Appeal 2021-000398
Application 12/697,188
6
because the claimed single interface language refers to a computer user
interface for entering data, not a network interface for computers to
exchange data. See Spec. ¶¶ 77–78.
We also are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that Proefke does
not describe this language of defining first and second access lists through a
single interface, because “nowhere does Proefke describe owners using a
communication pathway to populate a database with lists for authorized
vehicles/users at the particular stations as the Examiner suggests,” and
“Proefke is silent regarding the database being populated, let alone that
owners use a communication pathway to populate the database with lists for
authorized vehicles/users at the particular stations.” Appeal Br. 13. Our
review of cited paragraphs 13, 24, 29, and 30 of Proefke lead us to conclude
that no “single interface” for a user to define access lists is disclosed there,
but, instead, essentially only a database is disclosed. See Proefke ¶¶ 13, 24,
29, 30.
The Examiner asserts, “Proefke has disclosed the use of a single
database that is used to define user profiles and the restrictions on which
stations the users have access to for charging. As a single database is used,
Proefke has disclosed the implementation of a single interface.” Answer 17
(emphasis added).
Based on our understanding of what the claimed “single interface” is,
set forth above, we do not agree that a broad reading of this term
encompasses a database. This is because the claimed single interface is a
computer user interface for a human to input data, as exemplified in the
Appellant’s Figure 10, not a database for storing data.
For these reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claim 3, because the Examiner has not established
Appeal 2021-000398
Application 12/697,188
7
that the combination of references discloses a “single interface” for defining
access lists with the claimed characteristics.
Claims 2 and 5–7
The Examiner has not established on the record that either of Pollack
or Hafner remedy the shortcomings of the rejection of claim 1. See Final
Act. 19–24. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2 and 5–7.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3 103(a) Pudar, Littrell,
Graziano, Proefke
1, 3
2 103(a) Pudar, Littrell,
Graziano, Proefke,
Pollack
2
5–7 103(a) Pudar, Littrell,
Graziano, Proefke,
Hafner
5–7
Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–7

REVERSED