Ex Parte Martin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 201612537920 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/537,920 08/07/2009 Warren T. Martin 1505-0220 6356 28078 7590 07/27/2016 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 EXAMINER PARK, HYUN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD ____________ Ex parte WARREN T. MARTIN and JOHN T. VOISINE ____________ Appeal 2015-001810 Application 12/537,920 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7, 9–11, and 19–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over at least the basic combinations of Slater et al. (US 2008/0036447 A1, published Feb. 14, 2008) (“Slater”) with Sanderford Appeal 2015-001810 Application 12/537,920 2 et al. (US 2008/0084216 A1, published Apr. 10, 2008).1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Claims 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added to highlight key limitation): 1. An arrangement for use in a utility meter, comprising: a temperature sensor operably coupled to measure a temperature influenced by at least a first meter component of the utility meter; a memory device; a communication circuit; a processing circuit operably coupled to receive information representative of temperature measurements from the temperature sensor, the processing circuit configured to: store first temperature information associated with a first time period in a first data record in the memory device, the first temperature information derived from one or more of the temperature measurements; store subsequent temperature information associated with corresponding subsequent time periods in corresponding other data records in the memory device, the subsequent temperature information derived from one or more of the temperature measurements; and periodically cause the communication circuit to communicate information representative of the first temperature information and the subsequent temperature information to an external device. Independent claims 19 and 22 are directed to similar arrangements as claim 1, and the disputed limitation “information representative of temperature” is common to all three independent claims. 1 We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a full listing of all the 103 rejections. Appellants’ rely on the same arguments for all of the rejections. The Examiner withdrew the 112 rejection of claim 28 (Ans. 3). Appeal 2015-001810 Application 12/537,920 3 ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the applied prior art. We sustain all of the § 103 rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis. Appellants’ main argument is that the highlighted claim phrase “information representative of temperature measurements” (claims 1, 19, and 22) does not encompass the feature of a temperature-compensated energy consumption value (e.g., watt-hrs), as taught by Slater (e.g., App. Br. 8, 10,11–12). This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. It is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.”) Here, Appellants’ Specification lacks any limiting definition of what may or may not be “information representative of temperature” (Spec. generally). Indeed, in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter section of the Appeal Brief, Appellants state that Fig.6 is a non-limiting example (App. Br. 3). Thus, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s Appeal 2015-001810 Application 12/537,920 4 determination that the disputed claim recitations highlighted in claim 1 encompass the temperature adjusted information of Slater (Ans. generally). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim terms. To the extent that Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that the periodic communication of information would have been obvious, (e.g., as recited in the last clause of claim 1), a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill would have appreciated the obviousness of a periodic transmission of information (e.g., Ans. 6). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also id., at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). To the extent any of the other claims are argued separately (e.g., claims 6 and 25–28), a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position (e.g., Ans. 10–13). The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. Appeal 2015-001810 Application 12/537,920 5 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation