Ex Parte AngelisDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 201411702415 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRUCE ANGELIS ____________________ Appeal 2012-007378 Application 11/702,415 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007378 Application 11/702,415 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–4, 10, and 12–16. Claims 5–9 and 11 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to verifying restored outages, such as in the field outage restoration of public utilities using automatic meter reading. Abst. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter with disputed limitations emphasize in italics: 1. One or more mobile data processing devices, wherein at least one mobile data processing device is configured for wirelessly receiving data from multiple utility meters arranged in a distributed network of endpoints and associated with a supplied utility, the one or more devices collectively comprising: a data collection component, wherein the data collection component wirelessly receives data from the multiple utility meters, wherein the data relates to consumption of the utility or relates to resumption of the utility at the utility meter; and an outage restoration component, wherein: when the outage restoration component receives an indication from at least one of the multiple utility meters that an outage associated with the utility meter has been corrected, at least one of the mobile processing devices indicates to a field worker a confirmation that a prior outage is corrected; and when the outage restoration component receives an indication from a given utility meter that an outage associated with such given utility meter has not been corrected, at least one of the mobile processing devices indicates to a field worker guidance information related to a possible outage located downstream from such uncorrected outage. Appeal 2012-007378 Application 11/702,415 3 10. A computer-readable medium being non-transitory, whose contents cause a mobile data capture device to perform a method of guiding a field worker associated with the mobile data capture device to an outage among a distributed network of endpoints of a utility associated with a utility consuming facility, the method comprising: providing a mobile data capture device adapted to receive signals from endpoints associated with the utility, indicating that outage at a given endpoint has been restored; and when the first endpoint does not return a signal indicating the outage has been restored: retrieving at the mobile data capture device location information identifying other endpoints related to the outage of the utility and located downstream from the first endpoint; comparing at the mobile data capture device the identified location information with a location of the field worker; and providing guidance information at the mobile data capture device to the field worker based on such comparison, wherein the guidance information relates to restoration of the outage. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chauhan Gupta US 2004/0236620 A1 US 2007/0005519 A1 Nov. 25, 2004 Jan. 4, 2007 Mason US 7,308,370 B2 Dec. 11, 2007 Appeal 2012-007378 Application 11/702,415 4 REJECTIONS1 The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta and Mason. Ans. 4–8. Claims 2–4 and 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta, Mason, and Chauhan. Ans. 8–13. APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS 1. Mason does not describe identifying a location of a field worker and, therefore, fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 10. App. Br. 9, 11–12. 2. Gupta discloses a drive-by meter reading system, not a network system as required by claim 1 and 10. App. Br. 10. 3. The combination of Mason and Gupta is improper because modifying Gupta to incorporate the outage detection components of Mason “would require massive amounts of hindsight to produce and, most likely, would be technically impossible.” App. Br. 10–11. ISSUES ON APPEAL Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8–12) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–10), the issues presented on appeal are: 1 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1 and 10. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–4 and 12–16. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1–4 based on claim 1 alone and the appeal of claims 10 and 12–16 based on claim 10 alone. Appeal 2012-007378 Application 11/702,415 5 Whether the Examiner erred in finding Mason’s Geographic Information System (GIS) inherently provides for the acquisition of a field worker’s location. Whether the Examiner erred in finding the argued network configuration recited in the preamble of claims 1 and 10 is not entitled to patentable weight and, in any case, is taught by the combination of Gupta and Mason. Whether the Examiner erred in combining Gupta and Mason in concluding claims 1 and 10 to be obvious. ANALYSIS In connection with claim 10 we have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred and agree with Appellant’s conclusions as to this rejection of the claim. However, in connection with claim 1, we disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and instead, except as noted infra, adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4–6) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 14– 17) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. In connection with claim 10 Appellant contends Mason fails to teach the disputed limitation of comparing at the mobile data capture device the identified location information with a location of the field worker. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues “there is no disclosed way for Mason to know where the field worker sent out by his OMS 211 is actually located as there is no Appeal 2012-007378 Application 11/702,415 6 disclosure whatsoever in Mason of a remote reading device of any type carried by a field worker that could possibly provide such information.” Id. The Examiner responds by finding Mason’s Geographic Information System (GIS) can accept global positioning system (GPS) positional information so as to provide the location of the field worker thereby teaching the disputed limitation of claim 10. Ans. 13–14. We disagree with the Examiner. Although we agree GPS could be used to provide the location of a field worker, we find no disclosure in the cited portions of Mason teaching as much. Absent a clear description of a mechanism for or step of providing a location of the field worker, we agree with Appellant the disputed limitation of comparing at the mobile data capture device the identified location information with a location of the field worker as required by claim 10 is not taught or suggested. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claim 10 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of dependent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gupta and Mason. For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gupta, Mason, and Chauhan, as the Examiner’s application of the Chauhan reference fails to cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra. Although Appellant similarly argues for the reversal of the rejection of claim 1 (App. Br. 11–12), such argument is not commensurate in scope with that claim and, therefore, not persuasive of Examiner error. In particular, the disputed language of claim 1 requires at least one of the mobile processing devices indicates to a field worker guidance information related to a possible outage located downstream from such uncorrected outage. The Examiner responds by finding Mason’s system provides outage Appeal 2012-007378 Application 11/702,415 7 information including identifying a meter in an outage condition and “information available from the OMS 211 can be passed to utility operators and used to direct crews to the outage locations.” Mason col. 9, ll. 39–41; Ans. 6. We find a broad but reasonable interpretation of guidance information as required by claim 1 includes and is thereby taught by identification of a possible location of the outage as taught by Mason. In contrast with claim 10, claim 1 does not require identifying a location of the field worker; identifying a location of the outage is sufficient to provide the required guidance information of claim 1. We are also unpersuaded of error based on Appellant’s argument Gupta fails to disclose a network system. See App. Br. 10. We instead agree with the Examiner the recitation of a network system appearing only in the preamble of the claims is not accorded patentable weight and, in any case, Mason discloses the disputed network. Ans. 14–15. Finally, we find unpersuasive attorney argument, unsupported by evidence,2 contending modifying Gupta to incorporate the outage restoration of Mason would “require wholesale modifications to Gupta” and “most likely, would be technically impossible.” App. Br. 10–11. Instead, we find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 6, 15–17. Therefore, we find unpersuasive of error Appellant’s contention that the combination of Gupta and Mason is improper. 2 Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appeal 2012-007378 Application 11/702,415 8 For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gupta and Mason and, for the same reasons, sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–4 over Gupta, Mason, and Chauhan, these dependent claims not separately argued. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner erred in finding Mason’s Geographic Information System (GIS) inherently provides for the acquisition of a field worker’s location. The Examiner did not err in finding the argued network configuration recited in the preamble of claims 1 and 10 is not entitled to patentable weight and, in any case, is taught by the combination of Gupta and Mason. The Examiner did not err in combining Gupta and Mason. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10 and 12–16 is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation