Ex Parte Simon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2016

10971720 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/971,720 10/21/2004
114602 7590 07114/2016
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Itron)
150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Simon
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OCOPC-1 6477
EXAMINER
ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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):
mailroom@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT SIMON
Appeal2014-000179
Application 10/971,7201
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Itron, Inc. (Appeal
Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-000179
Application 10/971,720
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's claimed invention relates to "[a] technique for routing and
processing work requests within a utility system (e.g., electric, gas, water
utility)." (Spec. i-f 21.)
Claims 1 and 2 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A method for combined scheduling and managing of work
in a utility system having meters for gathering data regarding
utility usage, the method comprising:
providing a first data type configured for representing data
associated with a first type of work event related to the utility
system;
providing a second data type configured for representing
data associated with a second type of work event related to the
utility system, wherein the second type of work event is distinct
from the first type of work event, and wherein the first and
second work events include at least one of the following:
investigating a possible tampering with one of the meters, an
installation of a new meter, determining utility usage associated
with one of the meters, and servicing one or more of the meters;
and
receiving, via a user interface provided to a field
technician for responding to work events, a first request to
perform the first type of work event; and
receiving, via the user interface, a second request to
perform the second type of work event;
wherein the interface is configured to determine a
processing destination for the first request and a processing
destination for the second request, and wherein the processing
destination is based on a type of utility data collection system.
2
Appeal2014-000179
Application 10/971,720
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hart (US 2008/0026780 Al, pub. Jan. 31, 2008) and Cain
(US 5,369,691, iss. Nov. 29, 1994).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hart, Benghiat (US 4,757,456, iss. July 12, 1988), and Cain.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that "Hart does not teach dispatching messages
(instructions) to different processing destinations 'based on a type of utility
data collection system,' and Cain does not teach transmitting to a field
technician." (Appeal Br. 7.)
The Specification does not define the term "processing destinations."
However, Appellant argues that a processing destination is a field
technician. (Id. at 14, "send any request to a processing destination (i.e., to a
field technician).")
With regard to the term "utility data collection system," the "examiner
interprets the type of utility data collection system of the present invention
as the servicing of electrical lines, meters, water and gas lines of Hart."
(Final Action 13-14.) We determine that under a broadest reasonable
interpretation, the term "utility data collection system" includes water, gas
and electrical meters. (See, e.g., Spec i-f 2; Appeal Br. 3, citing Spec. i-fi-135,
58.)
Hart discloses "[a] dispatch communication and management system
method ... allowing a dispatcher and remote service technicians to
exchange messages over a network." (Hart, Abstract.) Specifically, Hart
3
Appeal2014-000179
Application 10/971,720
discloses "[a] dispatch computer acts as a central processor for formulating
work orders for dispatch to service technicians' communication devices and
for receiving updates from such technicians regarding the status of work
orders." (Id. i-f 11.) Hart further discloses that "[t]he dispatch computer
forwards the message to the selected service technician via a wireless
communications network." (Id.)
Thus, Hart teaches a system for dispatching and communicating with
service technicians/processing destinations.
With regard to Cain, Appellant argues that "Cain teaches !!. type of
data collection system" and that "such a general teaching without massive
application of impermissible hindsight would teach essentially nothing to
one of ordinary skill in the art about sending messages to technicians in the
field for processing based on the type of utility data collection system being
used." (Appeal Br. 12.) But Cain should not be read in isolation. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The question of obviousness is
whether "a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention."
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Cain discloses "[a]n apparatus for communicating information
between customer locations and remote locations." (Cain, Abstract.)
Specifically, Cain discloses transmission of meter readings to a distribution
point and then selective retransmission
over a telephone link . . . . The selective re-transmission could
be determined based on the type of meter reading to assure that
the appropriate information was transmitted only to the proper
requesting location: for example, to insure that only gas meter
readings were sent to the gas company.
4
Appeal2014-000179
Application 10/971,720
(Cain, col. 11, 11. 28-3 5.) In other words, Cain teaches selecting routing for
information based on the type of utility meter read. (See Final Action 5-6,
Answer 4.)
From this, the Examiner determines "that since the re-transmission [in
Cain] ... is based on the type of meter reading in order to transmit to the
proper requesting location, it is obvious to combine with Hart, who suggests
the dispatching to different processing destinations based on the type of
service." (Answer 5.) In other words, the Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to determine the service technician based on the
type of utility meter, e.g., determine to send an electrical service technician
in response to a request regarding an electric meter.
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under§ 103. Claims 3 and 5 are not separately argued and,
therefore, fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 2 is similar to claim 1. However, the wherein clause of claim 2
recites: "wherein the first type of work event is associated with monitoring
consumption of a utility associated with the utility system and wherein the
second type of work event is associated with servicing one or more of the
meters."
Appellant argues that claim 2 "differentiates different work order
types based on the difference between reading meters and servicing meters."
(Appeal Br. 16.) Appellant further argues that "Benghiat does not teach or
suggest directing field technicians to specific locations to perform distinctly
different types of work events; rather, he teaches 'A routing and recording
system' that provides a meter reader with routing instructions to be followed
while she is in the filed [sic] collecting consumption data." (Id. at 17.) But
5
Appeal2014-000179
Application 10/971,720
"one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." In
re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Moreover, Benghiat teaches more than Appellant suggests. Benghiat
is titled "Device and Method for Utility Meter Reading." Benghiat
discloses:
This invention, while having most important application
for meter reading is also useful for industrial data gathering,
inventory control, property assessment, security services,
transportation, delivery services.
This invention is also intended for scheduling the route of
operators who tum-on and tum-off any accounts and incorporate
in the device any data resulting thereof and also for scheduling
the route of maintenance crews and to report back the results of
their mission and any data required for the record.
(Benghiat, col. 8, 11. 1-10; see Final Action 9.) In short, Benghiat teaches
scheduling/ dispatching meter reading and maintenance crews.
Thus, Hart teaches dispatching service technicians (Hart, 1A .. bstract),
Benghiat teaches scheduling/dispatching meter reading crews (monitoring
consumption) and maintenance crews (servicing meters), and Cain teaches
selecting routing based on the type of utility meter (see Final Action 5---6,
Answer 4, Cain, col. 11, 11. 28-35). From this, the Examiner determines that
the invention of claim 2 would have been obvious in view of the
combination of Hart, Benghiat, and Cain. (See Final Action 9-12).
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 2 under§ 103.
6
Appeal2014-000179
Application 10/971,720
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7