Ex Parte Johnson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201411702435 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MATTHEW JOHNSON and DAVID J. RONALDS Appeal 2012-0043651 Application 11/702,435 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Itron, Inc. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-004365 Application 11/702,435 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-21, and 23-25. Claims 2 and 22 have been canceled. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for providing an alarm information to outage management system (OMS) thereby notifying the OMS of a utility outage at a location to begin the restoration process of the outage. Spec. ¶ 16. In particular, upon determining the utility outage at a utility meter (110-114) collecting consumption data, an outage notification module at the meter transmits notification messages to a collector (130-132) connected thereto wirelessly. The collector (130-132) decodes the received notification message to generate an alarm packet containing the identified outage, which it transmits to a central collector (140). After decoding the received alarm packet, the central collector (140) transmits the packet to a data manager (150) to add identification information to the message (e.g. serial number of the meter). Then, the central collector (140) transmits the packet to the OMS (160) to begin the utility restoration process. Spec. ¶¶ 27-33; Fig. 1. Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative. It reads as follows: 1. A fixed network positive outage notification system, comprising: Appeal 2012-004365 Application 11/702,435 3 multiple utility meters that each collect consumption data from a utility, wherein each utility meter includes an outage notification module that wirelessly transmits multiple notification messages upon determining an outage of the utility at the utility meter; multiple collectors, wirelessly connected to at least some of the utility meters, wherein at least one of the multiple collectors receives at least one of the multiple notification messages from the utility meter, decodes the at least one received notification message to determine contents of the received notification message, and transmits an alarm packet containing an alarm message positively identifying the outage when the determined contents contain a positive indication of the outage at the utility; a central collector, communicatively coupled to the multiple collectors, wherein the central collector receives the alarm packet, decodes the alarm packet to extract the alarm message, and transmits the alarm message to an outage management system to begin a process of restoration of the outage; and a data manager, communicatively coupled to the central collector, that adds identification information about the utility to the alarm message. Prior Art Relied Upon Johnson et al. US 5,553,094 Sep. 3, 1996 Chauhan et al. US 2004/0236620 A1 Nov. 25, 2004 Boaz US 2005/0270173 A1 Dec. 8, 2005 Mason, Jr. et al. US 7,308,370 B2 Dec. 11, 2007 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2012-004365 Application 11/702,435 4 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Johnson and Mason. Claims 14 and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Johnson and Chauhan. Claims 15-16 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Johnson, Chauhan, and Mason. Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Johnson, Mason, and Boaz. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-14.2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the proposed combination of Johnson and Mason teaches or suggests, a data manager that adds identification information about the utility to a received alarm message containing a notification of a utility outage, as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue the proffered combination of references does not teach the disputed limitations emphasized above. Br. 7-11. In particular, 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 22, 2011), and the Answer (mailed October 19, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-004365 Application 11/702,435 5 Appellants argue that Johnson discloses a central data collection system receiving, from a utility meter, an alarm message containing the meter identification (ID). According to Appellants, neither Johnson nor Mason teaches a separate data manager that adds to the alarm message further information (beyond the meter ID) about the meter (e.g., meter serial number, service address, or transformer ID) known to the data manager. Br. 10-11. In response, the Examiner finds Johnson’s disclosure of a central data terminal having integrated therein a data manager, which updates priority tables containing alarm messages received from utility meters, teaches the disputed limitations. Ans. 11. On the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. We note at the outset, albeit the disputed limitations require a separate data manager, they do not require that the data manager add further utility identification information to the alarm message. Rather, the claims only require that the data manager add identification information about the utility to the alarm message. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Johnson’s disclosure of the central data terminal updating alarm messages received from collectors (Johnson, col. 22, ll. 47-53) teaches or at least suggests a data manager integrated in a central data collector adding identification information to the alarm messages. Further, although Appellants correctly argue that Johnson discloses a central manager, as opposed to a central collector and a separate data manager communicatively coupled thereto, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Johnson’s central Appeal 2012-004365 Application 11/702,435 6 collector is capable of performing the separate functionalities of the central collector and the data manager. Accordingly, we find only routine skill would be required to divide Johnson’s central collector performing the disclosed functions into a central collector gathering alarm messages received from the collector and a separate data manager updating the alarm messages. We thus find the cumulative weight and the totality of the evidence on this record favor the Examiner’s position that the combined disclosures of Johnson and Mason would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellants have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal of providing arguments or evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. It therefore follows that Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Johnson and Mason renders claim 1 unpatentable. As to claim 6, Appellants argue the combination of Johnson and Mason does not teach or suggest a utility meter wirelessly transmitting two or more signals, each signal containing information related to positive notification of the utility outage at a utility consuming facility. Br. 11. According to Appellants, the phrase “positive notification†is directed to determining whether an outage has actually occurred without entering into a verification process as required by Mason. Id. However, the Examiner finds Johnson’s disclosure of a meter repeatedly transmitting alarm signals immediately following the detection of an alarm condition teaches the Appeal 2012-004365 Application 11/702,435 7 disputed limitation. Ans. 20. Because Appellants’ arguments are directed to Mason’s teachings, whereas the Examiner relies upon Johnson’s disclosure to teach the disputed limitations, Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the specific findings made by the Examiner. Consequently, Appellants’ arguments fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings. Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 1 and 6 above, claims 3-5, 7- 21, and 23-25 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-21, and 23-25 as set forth above. 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 lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation