Ex Parte Junker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

11490645 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

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.
11/490,645 07/21/2006 John P. Junker 1505-0195 5571
7590 07/31/2012
Maginot, Moore & Beck
Chase Tower
Suite 3250
111 Monument Circle
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
WONG, ALBERT KANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JOHN P. JUNKER and GORDON R. BURNS
____________________

Appeal 2010-005840
Application 11/490,645
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005840
Application 11/490,645

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection
of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates generally to utility meters, and
more particularly, utility meters having automated meter reading capability.
Specification 1.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:

a) receiving an external signal into a transceiver of a
utility meter;

b) obtaining first bias power from the external signal;

c) obtaining first meter data from the external signal;

d) providing the first bias power to a non-volatile
memory;

e) storing the first meter data into the non-volatile
memory; and

f) performing commodity consumption measurements
within the utility meter based at least in part on the first meter
data.

REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Stafford (US 5,825,302, Oct. 20, 1998 ).
Appeal 2010-005840
Application 11/490,645

3

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Stafford teaches the limitation of “receiving an external signal into a
transceiver of a utility meter” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part
of a “fully integrated written instrument” consisting principally
of a specification that concludes with the claims. For that
reason, claims “must be read in view of the specification, of
which they are a part.” . . . [T]he specification “is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.”

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Stafford does not teach the limitation of
“receiving an external signal into a transceiver of a utility meter” as recited
in claim 1 (emphases added) because the transponder 11 of the remote unit
26, as shown in Figures 3 and 4 of Stafford, are completely separate from
meters 30, 31, and 32 (App. Br. 6).
The Examiner, in the Answer, clarifies that in Stafford Figure 4, item
11 is a transceiver connected to the meter that is shown as item 15c in
Figure 1 (item 11 is the same element in Figures 4 and 1) (Ans. 6). The
Examiner explains that the transceiver (item 11) is receiving an external
Appeal 2010-005840
Application 11/490,645

4
signal and the transceiver is related to a utility meter (Ans. 6). The
Examiner further states that there is no limitation in claim 1 which requires
that the transceiver be integrated with the meter as implied by Appellants’
remarks (Ans. 6).
Appellants respond that a “transceiver of a utility meter,” as properly
interpreted, means that the transceiver is of or “part of” a utility meter
(Reply Br. 1). Appellants assert that this interpretation is consistent with the
specification and plain meaning of the term (Reply Br. 1).
We agree. The specification is the single best guide to the meaning of
disputed terms. Appellants’ Specification describes a meter that includes a
transceiver that is operable to receive external signals (Spec. 3).
Accordingly, the term “transceiver of a utility meter” is properly construed
as the transceiver being part of the utility meter. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1315.
Furthermore, we agree with Appellants, that item 15c of Stafford is
not a meter. Item 15c of Stafford is a “meter reading device” (see Stafford
at col. 3, line 39 and Fig. 1) (Reply Br. 1). Thus, the Examiner is incorrect
in alleging that the transponder 11 is connected to the meter that is shown in
Figure 1 because there is no meter in Stafford’s Figure 1 (Reply Br. 2).
Moreover, Appellants explain, and we agree, that while Stafford does
disclose a meter reading device 15c, it is not clear whether such a meter
reading device 15c connects to a single meter, or to more meters (Reply Br.
2).
Thus, we agree with Appellants that it is inaccurate to characterize the
transponder 11 of Stafford as being a “transceiver of a utility meter” merely
because it connects to a meter reading device 15c (Reply Br. 2).
Appeal 2010-005840
Application 11/490,645

5
Accordingly we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-7.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Stafford teaches the limitation of
“receiving an external signal into a transceiver of a utility meter” as recited
in claim 1 (emphases added).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh