Ex parte PHARR

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 1998

08279565 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 25, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT S. PHARR
_____________
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,5651
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, STAAB
and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-23 which are all the claims pending in
the application.
Appellant’s invention is a machine readable display unit
for metered devices. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
2
matter on appeal and recites:
1. A machine readable display unit for metered devices
of the type displaying a changeable, readable indicia
proportional to an input thereto, said input varying in
relative value over a period of time, said machine readable
display unit comprising:
means for displaying alpha-numeric indicia in a machine
readable format;
means for changing said readable indicia responsive to
the input to the metered device.
THE REFERENCES
The following references were relied on by the examiner
in support of the rejections:
Becker et al. (Becker) 4,588,949 May 13,
1986
Munday et al. (Munday) 4,977,368 Dec. 11,
1990
Wakatsuki et al. (Wakatsuki) 5,278,551 Jan.
11, 1994
(filed April 16, 1993)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 and 11-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Wakatsuki.
Claims 10 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Becker in view of Wakatsuki as applied
to claims 1-9 and 11-22 above, and further in view of Munday.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
3
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 10) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of
the rejections and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 7) and
reply brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant’s claimed
subject matter as described in the specification, the appealed
claims, the prior art references applied by the examiner, and
the respective positions advanced by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
As a preliminary matter we base our understanding of the
appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of
the terminology employed in the claims. In line 7 of claim
14, we interpret the “input” there recited to be the same
“input” recited in line 4 of claim 1 (See specification at
page 3, lines 21-24).
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-22
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in
view of Wakatsuki, we find that Becker discloses a metering
apparatus 1 which has a tamper indicating mechanism 12, a
metering mechanism 5 and a base 3 disposed in a socket 11.
The tamper indicating mechanism 12 includes a means on a
rotating drums 21 for displaying markings 25 which may be
numerals, alphanumeric characters, or bar code. The tamper
indicating mechanism comprises a one-way ratchet for causing
the drums 21 to move to display the next marking upon either
insertion or removal of the meter base from its socket (column
5, lines 6-17). In addition, the one-way ratchet is
configured such that one who tampers with the meter “will be
unable to rotate the register drums [carrying markings 25] in
a reverse direction . . . and will also be unable to rotate
the register drums through one full turn in order to display
the original markings which was [sic, were] displayed before
any tampering had occurred” (column 5, lines 31-36).
Wakatsuki discloses a meter reading system to facilitate
the reading and recording of meter data. In pertinent part,
the Wakatsuki system includes a meter having a label 3 with a
bar-coded user number and a digital display section 4 for
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
5
providing a digital display of a current reading in a
plurality of digits (column 3, lines 43-48). The digits in
the digital display are representative of energy consumed
(column 1, lines 25-27). A meterman uses a hand held data
input terminal unit 6 having a bar code reader and a keypad to
read the bar code label and to input the current reading
displayed on the digital display section.
Independent claim 1 requires that the means for
displaying alpha-numeric indicia in machine readable form is
responsive to an input to the meter that varies in relative
value over a period of time.
In rejecting claim 1, the examiner considers that the
Becker’s drums 21 correspond to the claimed means for
displaying alpha-numeric indicia in machine readable form. As
we understand it, it is the examiner’s position that the
movement of Becker’s meter when inserting or removing it from
its base constitutes an input that varies in relative value
over time. Alternatively, it may possibly be the examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to make Becker’s
drums 21 responsive to an input that varies in relative value
over time in view of Wakatsuki.
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
6
In either case, we do not agree. First, the movement of
Becker’s meter when inserting or removing it from its base is
not an input that varies in value over time. Second, there is
nothing in Wakatsuki which would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that Becker’s meter may be modified
such that the drums 21 are responsive to an input that varies
over time. In this regard, it reasonably appears that the
user number bar coded on the label 3 of Wakatsuki does not, in
normal use, vary over time. As such, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or claims 2-9 and 11-13 which
depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Becker in view of Wakatsuki.
We turn next to claim 14. Claim 14 recites a utility
rate meter with a changeable readable indicia which represents
energy consumed and a display unit which displays alphanumeric
indicia in machine readable format.
The examiner is of the opinion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have provided the meter of Becker with a
changeable readable indicia representative of energy consumed
in view of the teachings of Wakatsuki. We do not agree. We
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
7
find no motivation in the applied prior art to modify the
tamper indicating mechanism disclosed in Becker so that the
display unit displays changeable readable indicia
representative of energy consumed. Indeed, there would be no
reason to make this change as the apparatus disclosed in
Becker includes a metering mechanism 5 for measuring
electrical power consumption (see column 3, lines 54-65). As
such, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to
claim 14 and dependent claims 15-22.
Turning next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Becker and
Wakatsuki and further in view of Munday, the examiner cites
Munday for disclosing a liquid crystal diode for display
means. According to the examiner, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have provided the meter of Becker as modified
with Wakatsuki with a display means including a liquid crystal
diode in order to better place readable information in
readable form. Even if we were to agree with the examiner’s
proposed modification of Becker in view of Munday, the
tertiary reference does not remedy the deficiencies noted
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
8
above for Becker and Wakatsuki as they relate to claims 1 and
14 from which claims 10 and 23 depend. As such, we will not
sustain this rejection.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we make the
following new rejection:
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Becker.
As detailed above, Becker discloses an apparatus with a
metering mechanism 5 and a tampering indicating mechanism.
With regard to the tampering indicating mechanism, Becker
discloses that a drum which includes markings is read to
determine whether it has been advanced to a next set of
markings thereby indicating that the base has been removed
from or replaced in the socket. Becker also discloses that
the markings can be bar code markings and that bar coding
enables automatic remote optical detection by a meter reader
using an optical laser scanner. As such, it is our view that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to utilize bar code markings on the metering mechanism 5 to
display changes in input to the metering apparatus in order to
enable automatic remote optical detection by a meter reader
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
9
using an optical laser scanner. This input would be
representative of energy consumed and would vary in relative
amount over time.
In regard to claims 8 and 21, we note that a display
means that includes a plurality of tumblers is well known. In
any case, in view of the disclosure in Becker of a display
means comprising a plurality of drums or tumblers (Fig. 5), it
would have been obvious to use such a plurality of drums or
tumblers in the modified metering apparatus of Becker.
In summary, the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-23 are
reversed.
We have entered a new rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 11-17
and 21 pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec.
1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,197 (Oct. 10,
1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct.
21, 1997)). Section 1.196(b) of 37 CFR provides that “A new
ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes
of judicial review.”
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
10
ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37
CFR § 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or a showing of facts relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the examiner..

(2) Request that the application be reheard under §
1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
11
1.136(a).
REVERSED
37 CFR § 1.196(b)
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH, Senior)
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MEC/gjh
Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
12
KARL S. SAWYER, JR.
KENNEDY COVINGTON LOBDELL &
HICKMAN, L.L.P.
NATIONSBANK CORP. CENTER
STE. 4200
100 NORTH TRYON STREET
CHARLOTTE, NC 28202-4006