Mueller International, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2019003386 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

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.
14/885,599 10/16/2015 Georgios Demosthenous 191372-1750 1631
118983 7590 12/16/2020
Taylor English Duma LLP / Mueller
1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
tjames@taylorenglish.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGIOS DEMOSTHENOUS, JACQUELINE DUDA
LEMMERHIRT, and CHRISTOPHER PAUL LACIVITA
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11, and 13–21. Claims 10, 12 and
22 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Mueller
International, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a selective delivery state change of valve of
remote metering device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a communication translator;
a remote metering device in communication with the
communication translator via a first communication link, the
remote metering device comprising a valve and configured to
send a status of the remote metering device to the communication
translator, the status comprising a delivery state of the valve,
consumption data of the remote metering device, and a meter
radio identifier; and
a mobile communication system in communication with
the communication translator via a second communication link,
the mobile communication system comprising a display
configured to display a graphical user interface (GUI), a remote
disconnect engine configured to allow generation, by the GUI, of
a command to selectively change the delivery state of the valve,
the delivery state comprising an off delivery state, a trickle
delivery state, and an on delivery state, and a meter status engine
configured to display, via the GUI, the status of the remote
metering device to a user of the mobile communication system,
wherein the status of the remote metering device comprises a
battery power level, a signal strength, and a version identifier.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Reference Date
Shades US 6,048,452 Apr. 11, 2000
Chen US 2004/0203375 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Hoiness US 2006/0074601 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
Fuller US 2007/0063867 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
Jhang US 2013/0154793 A1 June 20, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–4, 7–9, 11, 13–17, and 19–21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller, Shades, and Hoiness.
Final Act. 2–15.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fuller, Shades, Hoiness, and Chen. Final Act. 15–16.
Claims 5–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fuller, Shades, Hoiness, and Hawkins. Final Act. 16–17.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fuller, Shades, Hoiness, and Jhang. Final Act. 17.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner provided sufficient reasoning for
combining Hoiness with the teachings of Fuller and Shades?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hoiness teaches or
suggests “generation, by the GUI, of a command to selectively change the
delivery state of the valve,” as recited in claim 1?

2 All citations herein to the references are by first named inventor/author
only.
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

4
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as being obvious over Fuller, Shades,
and Hoiness. Final Act. 3–6. The Examiner finds that Fuller and Shades
teach most of the claim limitations (Final Act. 3–4), but that they do not
teach the limitations relating to “a mobile communication system” and its
associated functionality (Final Act. 5). The Examiner introduces Hoiness,
finding that it addresses the deficiencies of Fuller and Shades. Final Act. 5–
6. The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Fuller
in view of Shades by integrating the teaching of a user interface as taught by
Hoiness.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that “[t]he motivation would be
to improve meter reading efficiency (see Hoiness, paragraph [0003]).” Final
Act. 6. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains:
[The] Hoiness reference was not relied upon to teach operation
of the meters, because the primary Fuller reference allows for
commanding meter devices (see Fuller, Paragraph [0020]). The
teachings of Fuller do not explicitly recite a user interface for
allowing the controlling of the meter devices, but one of ordinary
skill in the art would be motivated to use a graphical user
interface, i.e. as taught by Hoiness, for purposes of facilitating
user interaction with the system.
Ans. 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
evidence and reasoning in support of the combination of Hoiness with Fuller
and Shades. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant argues:
No adequate evidentiary basis supports the assertion that it would
have been obvious to combine Hoiness with Fuller and Shades
so as to produce Appellant's claimed graphical user interface
("GUI") that both: (i) displays a status of the remote metering
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

5
device, and (ii) enables a user of the mobile communication
system to “send . . . a command to selectively change the
delivery state of the valve.”
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further asserts the asserted motivation to combine
Hoiness is deficient in two respects—(1) that the paragraph in Hoiness cited
as supporting the combination relates only to conventional meter reading
and (2) that elsewhere in Hoiness, the purported improvement is described
as relating to meter reading and not to remote meter operation. Appeal
Br. 8. According to Appellant, “a motivation to facilitate the mere collection
of meter data is not . . . a motivation to combine references to result in a
system having a graphic user interface that enables a user of a mobile
communication system to both collect meter data and remotely control
operation of the meters.” Appeal Br. 8. We disagree.
“[T]he PTAB must make a finding of a motivation to combine when it
is disputed.” In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A
factfinder “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim” and “can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
“However, rejections 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.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted by
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appellant’s claim generally includes three main components—a
remote metering device, a communications interface, and mobile
communication system having a user interface that allows for control and
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

6
monitoring of the metering system. As noted above, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Dixon and Fuller are deficient only in that they do not teach
that a user interface and remote control is provided via a mobile
communication system. Hoiness demonstrates that it was known in the art
to collect utility consumption information using a mobile data collection
system which includes a user interface. Hoiness ¶ 52 (“The pages or screens
are stored and/or transmitted as display descriptions, as graphical user
interfaces, or by other methods of depicting information on a screen
(whether personal computer, PDA, mobile telephone, or other).” (italics
added)). Hoiness also reflects the knowledge in the art that it is desirable to
improve meter reading efficiency using mobile data collection systems.
Hoiness ¶ 3.
We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
possessing the teachings of Hoiness and Dixon/Fuller, would have
appreciated that the efficiency and usability of meter reading taught by
Dixon/Fuller would be improved by providing a graphical user interface as
taught by Hoiness. As Hoiness expressly teaches the desirability of
improving meter reading efficiency, we agree with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Hoiness with those of Dixon/Fuller.
Appellant argues the purported motivation identified by the Examiner
in Hoiness ¶ 3 relates only to improving efficiency through the use of
convention mobile automatic meter reading (MAMR), and that the
Specification’s teaching of improving servicer safety and operational
efficiency reflects “the only source of record of a motivation to combine
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

7
features in the way Appellant has.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Spec. ¶ 14). We
disagree.
The motivation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had to combine prior art references need not be the same motivation that
inspired the patent owner. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[A]ny need or problem
known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the
patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
claimed.”); see also Kahn, 441 F.3d at 989 (“[T]he skilled artisan need not
be motivated to combine [a prior art reference] for the same reason
contemplated by the [inventor]”).
Moreover, although Appellant asserts that the benefit of operational
efficiency is found only in Appellant’s Specification, Hoiness teaches that
the use of a graphical user interface allows for improved ease of use of the
system. See Hoiness ¶ 41 (“A user input/output component 210 provides an
appropriate user interface for an operator of the data collection system 108.
For example the . . . system 108 may provide a color touch screen display
for ease of use and clear graphical mapping displays.” (emphasis added)).
The benefit to usability described by Hoiness would have provided a further
reason for a skilled artisan to incorporate the graphical user interface of
Hoiness into Dixon/Fuller.
The standard for determining whether a claim is obvious is “an
expansive and flexible approach.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. For the reasons
discussed above, we conclude that Examiner has provided sufficient
reasoning under the expansive and flexible approach countenanced in KSR,
and we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner failed to provide adequate
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

8
reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the teaching of Hoiness with those of Dixon and Fuller.
Second Issue
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a remote disconnect engine configured
to allow generation, by the GUI, a command to selectively change the
delivery state of the valve of the remote metering device.” Appeal Br. 16
(Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Fuller
teaches “a remote disconnect engine configured to allow generation . . . of a
command to selectively change the delivery state of the valve.” Final Act. 4
(citing Fuller ¶ 20). The Examiner acknowledges that Fuller does not teach
that the command is generated “by the GUI,” and relies on Hoiness as
teaching this aspect of the limitation. Final Act. 5 (finding Hoiness teaches
“configured to allow generation by a GUI, of a command” (citing Hoiness
¶ 55)).
Appellant contends the Examiner has erred because “[t]he GUIs
disclosed by Hoiness solely concern various actions associated with
‘endpoint location files,’ which ‘may contain location information for all
endpoints recognized within the utility’s customer information system.’”
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Hoiness ¶ 26). Appellant further argues “Hoiness does
not contemplate a GUI that provides any remote control of any endpoint
whatsoever. Thus, Hoiness does not supply the teaching that Fuller and
Shades undisputedly lack.” Appeal Br. 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The crux of
Appellant’s argument is that Hoiness’s GUI does not possess all of the
functionality recited in the disputed limitation. That is, Appellant argues
that although Hoiness teaches a GUI, the GUI does not allow a user to
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

9
remotely control a valve as required by the claim. Appeal Br. 12. However,
this argument does not address the rejection that was made by the Examiner.
The Examiner found that Fuller teaches remotely controlling a valve by
generating “a command . . . to selectively change the delivery state of the
valve.” Final Act 4. The Examiner does not rely on Hoiness to show that
issuing remote control commands to valves was known in the art. The
Examiner relies on Fuller for that teaching. The Examiner relies on Hoiness
only to show that it was known in the art to use a GUI to issue commands in
the context of a utility metering environment. Final Act. 5–6. As such,
Appellant’s argument that Hoiness does not teach remote control of
endpoints does not address the rejection made by the Examiner, as it is
Fuller that teaches remotely controlling endpoints. Accordingly, we do not
find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error, and we sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims for the reasons stated with respect to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
Appeal 2019-003386
Application 14/885,599

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–4, 7–9,
11, 13–17,
19–21
103 Fuller, Shades,
Hoiness
1, 3–4, 7–9,
11, 13–17,
19–21

2 103 Fuller, Shades,
Hoiness, Chen
2
5, 6 103 Fuller, Shades,
Hoiness, Hawkins
5, 6
18 103 Fuller, Shades,
Hoiness, Jhang
18
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11, 13–
21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED