14750566 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2019)

Ronald C. Tate et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 18, 2019

14750566 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2019)

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. 14/750,566 06/25/2015 Ronald C. Tate 035361-1108300 9410 23370 7590 07/18/2019 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800 ATLANTA, GA 30309 EXAMINER ZAKARIA, AKM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2868 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/18/2019 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RONALD C. TATE and WOJCIECH JANCZAK1 ____________ Appeal 2018-007554 Application 14/750,566 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sullivan (US 2004/0093917 A1, published May 20, 2007) in view of Bishop (US 5,140,258, issued August 18, 1992). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, LANDIS+GYR LLC, which is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2018-007554 Application 14/750,566 2 We REVERSE. Appellant claims a meter cover removal detection arrangement comprising: a switch element 150 having first and second (i.e., opened and closed) positions with respect to first and second contacts 161, 162; a pivoting lever arm 130 operably coupled to the switch element; a meter cover 22 having an inward extending cam 24; and a plunger 120 operably coupled to the pivoting lever arm; wherein the cam 24 engages the plunger 120 when the meter cover is installed on a meter base and the cam is disengaged from the plunger when the meter cover is removed (independent claim 1, Figs. 4–5; see also remaining independent claims 10 and 13). According to Appellant’s Specification, the claimed arrangement results in a signal being generated (i.e., via switch element 150 connecting with contacts 161 and 162) when the meter cover is removed (Spec. ¶¶ 58–59). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix filed March 16, 2018, appears below. 1. A meter cover removal detection arrangement, comprising: a switch element having a first position and a second position, the switch element conducting electricity between first and second contacts in only one of the first position and the second position; a pivoting lever arm having a first arm position and a second arm position, the pivoting lever arm operably coupled to cause the switch element to be in the second position when the pivoting lever arm is in a second arm position, the pivoting lever arm engaging a spring, the spring biasing the pivoting lever arm toward the second arm position; a meter cover having an inward extending cam; and Appeal 2018-007554 Application 14/750,566 3 a plunger having a first plunger position and a second plunger position, the plunger operably coupled to hold the pivoting lever arm in the first arm position when the plunger is in the first plunger position; wherein the cam engages the plunger to hold the plunger in the first plunger position when the meter cover is installed on a meter base, and the cam is disengaged from the plunger when the meter cover is removed. In rejecting representative independent claim 1 (as well as the other independent claims), the Examiner finds that Sullivan teaches a meter cover removal detection arrangement having essentially the claimed features (Final Action 5–6) but “does not teach explicitly the pivoting lever arm operably coupled to cause the switch element to be in the second position when the pivoting lever arm is in a second arm position” (id. at 6). The Examiner finds that Bishop supplies this deficiency (id. at 6–7). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Sullivan by having the pivoting lever arm operably coupled to cause the switch element to be in the second position when the pivoting lever arm is in a second arm position as taught by Bishop in order to provide “releasable retainer for retains [sic] the switch in the normally open position during insertion of the meter into its receiving socket and releases the switch means after such insertion” ([as recited in Bishop’s] abstract) (id. at 7 (italics removed)). Regarding the claim requirement that the pivoting lever arm be operably coupled to cause the switch element to be in a second position, Appellant convincingly argues there no teaching or suggestion that Sullivan’s lever arm 12 is operably coupled to the undepicted switch mentioned in Sullivan’s background discussion (i.e., Sullivan ¶ 6) (App. Br. Appeal 2018-007554 Application 14/750,566 4 12–13). Analogously, Appellant convincingly argues that the Examiner’s above quoted rationale for modifying Sullivan (i.e., to retain the switch in an open position during insertion of the meter into its receiving socket) is deficient because “[n]either the lever arm 12 nor the rest of the locking mechanism 2 of Sullivan has any function relating to insertion of the meter into a meter socket” (id. at 16). In response to these arguments, the Examiner concedes that “Sullivan does not teach coupling this switch with lever arm 12 during operation” (Ans. 7) but finds that “Bishop teaches operating electrical switch with a lever arm” (id.). Without embellishment, the Examiner states, “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine these features for additional meter tampering protection” (id.). However, the Examiner’s obviousness statement lacks persuasive merit because it is conclusory without articulated reasoning and rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As for the claim requirement of a meter cover having an inwardly extending cam, Appellant argues the Examiner erroneously finds this requirement satisfied by Sullivan’s tabs 76 and cam edges 76a (App. Br. 18). In support of this argument, Appellant correctly points out that these tabs and cam edges are part of Sullivan’s lever arm 12 rather than meter cover C (id.). Appeal 2018-007554 Application 14/750,566 5 The Examiner contends the claim requirement is satisfied because Sullivan’s tabs and cam edges “are engaged to meter cover ‘C’ thru [sic] cover engaging portion ‘72’” (Ans. 8–9). This contention is unpersuasive because the Examiner provides no support for interpreting the claim limitation “a meter cover having an inward extending cam” as encompassing these features of Sullivan. Appellant also convincingly argues that the Examiner erroneously finds Sullivan’s tabs 76 engage plunger 8 to hold the plunger in a position thereby satisfying the claim limitation “the cam engages the plunger to hold the plunger in the first plunger position” (App. Br. 19). Appellant correctly explains that Sullivan’s tabs 76 do not engage plunger 8 in any sense because the plunger is outside the meter box whereas the tabs are inside the meter box (id. at 19–20). The Examiner responds by reiterating the finding but does not identify factual support for the proposition that Sullivan’s tabs 76 engage plunger 8 under any definition of the claim term “engage” (Ans. 10). Appellant’s above discussed arguments show multiple reversible errors in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection. In light of these errors, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–20 over Sullivan and Bishop. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. REVERSED