Ex Parte Monier et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201512848502 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015) 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. 12/848,502 08/02/2010 Fabrice Monier OCO-140-3.6-CON 6067 22827 7590 01/30/2015 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER ESKANDARNIA, ARVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2015 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 APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FABRICE MONIER and JEROME BARTIER ___________ Appeal 2012-006677 Application 12/848,502 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Fabrice Monier and Jerome Bartier (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) claims 23 and 26 as anticipated by O’Neal (US 2006/0259607 A1; pub. Nov. 16, 2006) and to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 24 and 25 as unpatentable over O’Neal and Bi (US 2006/ 0039315 A1; pub. Feb. 23, 2006). Claims 1–22 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-006677 Application 12/848,502 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to protocols relative to utility meters associated with an open operational framework.” Spec. para. 2; Fig. 1. Claim 23, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 23. A metrology device for use with an advanced metering system mesh network having adaptive neighborhood management of communications links, and having a central facility, a plurality of node devices, with at least some of such node devices comprising such metrology devices, and at least some of such node devices comprising father node devices providing synchronized communications links for others of the node devices defining son node devices of a given respective father node device, with each node device configured for bi-directional communications with such central facility via associations with respective of the father node devices, said metrology device comprising: a metrology portion configured to measure consumption of a utility commodity; a transmitter portion configured to transmit consumption information from its associated metrology portion and other data; and a receiver portion configured to receive information from other network devices in an associated network; wherein said metrology device portion is configured for providing to its respective father node device on an associated network information about alternative father communications links available to such metrology device in such associated network, so that such respective father node device may make determinations about removing such metrology device as a son thereof in lieu of other node devices on such associated network. Appeal 2012-006677 Application 12/848,502 3 ANALYSIS Anticipation by O’Neal – Claims 23 and 26 Independent claim 23 calls for a metrology device including a metrology portion and “a transmitter portion configured to transmit consumption information from its associated metrology portion.” Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that O’Neal teaches all the limitations of claim 23. See Ans. 5–7. Specifically the Examiner finds that O’Neal at paragraph 93 “[discusses] where the computer system at the server and user nodes may have distribution software installed which enables the nodes to be arranged and for computer systems to receive and transmit data.” Id. at 6. Appellants contend that the Examiner has misquoted the disclosure at [paragraph 93 of O’Neal] when he notes that O’Neal states (emphasis added) “where the computer system at the server and user nodes may have distribution software installed which enables the [nodes] to be arranged and for computer systems to receive and transmit data.” The cited portion of O’Neal (paragraph [0093]) plainly states (emphasis added) that “As more fully discussed below, under this embodiment the computer systems at the server and user nodes may have distribution software installed in them which enables the nodes to be arranged as shown and for the computer systems to receive and re-transmit data.” This is exactly what O’Neal does – he distributes audio- video information by transmitting it to one node that then re- transmits it to another node. Respectfully, O’Neal’s nodes do not have any capability to transmit any form of consumption information from its associated metrology portion[,] as specifically recited in claim 23. Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2012-006677 Application 12/848,502 4 Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Paragraph 93 of O’Neal merely discusses that the computer systems and user nodes may have distribution software installed in them, which allows for the nodes to be in a particular arrangement and for the computer systems to receive and re- transmit data. See O’Neal para. 93; see also Appeal Br. 8. We agree with Appellants that paragraph 93 of O’Neal fails to disclose a transmitter portion configured to transmit consumption information from its associated metrology portion. See Appeal Br. 8; see also id. at 12, Claims App. Moreover, the Examiner finds that O’Neal discloses a mechanism (metrology portion) for measuring a data flow rate (consumption of a utility commodity). See Ans. 6, 10 (citing O’Neal, para. 361, ll. 4–7); see also Reply Br. 2–3. However, the Examiner does not direct us to any portion in O’Neal that discusses an association between the mechanism (metrology portion) and the transmitter portion (i.e., transmission of consumption information (data) from one node to another node (see Ans. 6, 10)), let alone to a portion that discusses that the mechanism (metrology portion) transmits the consumption information. See Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. As such, the Examiner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that O’Neal anticipates the metrology device called for in independent claim 23. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 23 and its respective dependent claim 26 as anticipated by O’Neal. Obviousness over O’Neal and Bi – Claims 24 and 25 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25 as unpatentable over O’Neal and Bi (see Ans. 7–9) is based on the same deficient findings discussed above with respect to independent claim 23. Bi is not relied upon Appeal 2012-006677 Application 12/848,502 5 to remedy the deficiencies of O’Neal. Accordingly, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25 as unpatentable over O’Neal and Bi. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 23–26. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation