ELECTRICAL GRID MONITORING LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019003940 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 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.
14/953,349 11/29/2015 EYAL MIRON 2477-US 2099
24505 7590 12/31/2020
Daniel J. Swirsky
11 Reuven Street
Beit Shemesh, 9954419
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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 EYAL MIRON and NIMROD SANDLERMAN

Appeal 2019-003940
Application 14/953,349
Technology Center 2600

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 8, 10, 11, 13–15, 20, 22, 23, and
25–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Electrical Grid Monitoring, Ltd.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003940
Application 14/953,349

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant describes the invention as follows: “The present
embodiments comprise a method and a system providing a wireless device
readily mountable on an electric[al grid] cable . . . [and] providing effective
coverage of wireless communication and/or remote sensing.” Spec. 4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates argued subject matter.
1. A device comprising:
a power supply module operative to extract electric power from
magnetic field surrounding an electric cable;
a backhaul transceiver operative to communicate in a backhaul
network;
a LAN transceiver operative to communicate in a wireless local
area network (LAN); and
a controller module communicatively coupled to said backhaul
transceiver, said LAN transceiver, and said power supply
module,
wherein said device is mounted around a single electric cable of
at least one of an electric transmission grid and an electric
distribution grid,
wherein said device derives power from said single electric
cable, and
wherein said device is operative to provide network
connectivity between a first separate communications device
and at least one of a second separate communication equipment
and a second separate communication terminal while extracting
electric power from said magnetic field surrounding said
electric cable,
wherein said LAN transceiver communicates with said first
separate communications device via said LAN,
Appeal 2019-003940
Application 14/953,349

3
wherein said backhaul transceiver communicates with said at
least one of second separate communication equipment and a
second separate communication terminal via said backhaul
network, and
wherein said LAN transceiver and said backhaul transceiver are
communicatively coupled with each other.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix.
Rejections
Claims 1–3 and 13–152 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Georgiou (US 2009/0015239 A1; published Jan. 15, 2009) and
Montemurro (US 2008/0198817 A1; published Aug. 21, 2008). Final Act.
2–11.
Claims 8, 11, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Georgiou, Montemurro, and Lorimer (US 2015/0204480 A1;
published July 23, 2015). Final Act. 11–13.
Claims 10, 22, and 25–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Georgiou, Montemurro, Lorimer, and Salter
(US 2010/0060479 A1; published Mar. 11, 2010). Final Act. 14–16.
OPINION
Appellant contends all rejections rely on an erroneous reading of the
independent claims’ “network connectivity” on a modification of Georgiou
in view of Montemurro. See infra. For the following reasons, we agree and
therefore do not sustain the rejections.

2 The headings for the rejections in the Final Action do not correspond to the
ensuing discussion in several instances. We have reviewed the rejections as
we list them here. We leave it to the Examiner to clarify the rejections with
respect to the headings going forward.
Appeal 2019-003940
Application 14/953,349

4
Georgiou’s invention clamps to a high-voltage transmission line,
senses and reports the line’s condition (e.g., sag), is powered by the line’s
magnetic field, and includes a wireless communication device (herein
“WD”) that receives commands and reports the measured condition.
Georgiou ¶¶ 33, 90. The rejections propose to replace Georgiou’s WD with
Montemurro’s WD that transceives data over a cellular network and local
area network (LAN). Final Act. 4–6; see also Montemurro Figs. 1, 3. The
articulated reason for this modification is to provide a power-saving feature
of Montemurro’s WD to Georgiou’s invention. Final Act. 6; see also
Montemurro ¶¶ 2, 32.
The at-issue “network connectivity” of the claimed device (claim 1)
and method (claim 13) is recited as follows: “said device is operative to
provide network connectivity between a first separate communications
device and . . . a second separate communication [device]” (claim 1);
“providing network connectivity between a first separate communications
device and . . . a second separate communication [device]” (claim 13).
Appeal Br. 6–7. In concluding these features are achieved by the
Georgiou-Montemurro combination, the Examiner reads: the recited
“network connectivity between” first and second separate communication
devices (herein “SCDs”) on the combination’s WD; the recited first SCD on
Georgiou’s device/s that would undergo cellular communications with the
WD; and the recited second SCD on Georgiou’s device/s that would undergo
LAN communications with the WD. Ans. 3–4.3

3 The Examiner does not specify two SCDs that would respectively
communicate with the WD via the cellular network and LAN. However,
Appellant does not contest that two such SCDs are suggested.
Appeal 2019-003940
Application 14/953,349

5
In contesting the above determinations, Appellant contends:
Montemurro describes a device (400) having a first WLAN
transceiver (450) and a second cellular transceiver (460) and a
method where a beacon signal received by the second
transceiver initiates communication by the first transceiver (see
Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 7).
Montemurro has two communication [means], where the first
[means] (WLAN) is turned off until the second [means]
(cellular) detects a beacon signal, thereafter the first
communication [means] is turned on and the first
communication [means] is turned off.
Clearly, Montemurro does not[, as claimed,] “provide network
connectivity between a first [SCD] and . . . a second [SCD] . . .
wherein said LAN transceiver communicates with said first
[SCD] via said LAN [and] said backhaul transceiver
communicates with said . . . second [SCD] . . . via said
backhaul network[.”]
Appeal Br. 6–7.
We are persuaded of error. As Appellant contends, the
Georgiou-Montemurro combination’s WD does not “provid[e] network
connectivity between” (claims 1 and 13) respective SCDs of the cellular
network and LAN. Rather, and as Appellant further contends, the WD
merely communicates with the networks—namely to achieve greater
power-efficiency (i.e., per the articulated rationale for the combination) by
‘sleeping’ the high-bandwidth, power-inefficient LAN connection until the
low-bandwidth, power-efficient cellular connection receives a
beacon-command to ‘wake’ the LAN for receipt of an awaiting
communication. Accord supra 4 (describing the combination); Final Act. 6;
Montemurro ¶ 32.
As to this argued shortcoming, the Examiner responds:
Appeal 2019-003940
Application 14/953,349

6
The claims only require the LAN transceiver and the backhaul
[(cellular)]4 transceiver to be communicatively coupled with
each other[.] . . . Montemurro teaches that the transceivers 450
and 460 may share an antenna . . . , which is functionally
equivalent to being communicatively coupled with each other.
Ans. 4. We are unpersuaded. The Examiner is neglecting the at-issue claim
requirement to “provid[e] network connectivity between” (claims 1 and 13)
the respective SCDs of the LAN and backhaul network. The Examiner,
instead, summarily interprets this requirement as being identical to the
later-recited requirement to “communicatively couple” the respective
transceivers of the LAN and backhaul network. Ans. 4. Such claim
constructions are generally unreasonable and certainly impermissible when,
as here, lacking presented support. See e.g., In re Power Integrations, Inc.,
884 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Another problem with the board’s
claim construction is that it renders claim language meaningless. . . . The
phrase ‘the digital to analog converter [is] coupled to the counter[]’ . .
. would be superfluous if, as the board said, it means only that the two
components are in the same circuit.”).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1–3, 8, 10, 11, 13–15, 20, 22, 23, and 25–28.

4 We are, per the rejections, merely corresponding the claims’ backhaul
features to the combination’s cellular features. The claims do not require the
backhaul features to be cellular features.
Appeal 2019-003940
Application 14/953,349

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 13–15 Georgiou, Montemurro 1–3, 13–15
8, 11, 20,
23
Georgiou, Montemurro,
Lorimer
8, 11, 20,
23
10, 22,
25–28
Georgiou, Montemurro,
Lorimer, Salter
10, 22,
25–28
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 8, 10,
11, 13–15,
20, 22, 23,
25–28

REVERSED