Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12537920 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

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