10472221 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

Ex Parte Milanes Garcia-Moreno

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 2013

10472221 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

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. 10/472,221 05/28/2004 Fernando Milanes Garcia-Moreno 45786 5345 1609 7590 09/23/2013 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,, DC 20036 EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2013 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 FERNANDO MILANES GARCIA-MORENO ____________ Appeal 2011-005425 Application 10/472,221 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005425 Application 10/472,221 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examinerâ€™s final decision rejecting claims 34 to 35, 38 to 43, 48, 50, 52, 54 to 58, and 60. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Claim 34 is illustrative: 34. A mechanical and electronic water supply control assembly and system for automatically supplying water at a predetermined volume of water on a daily basis autonomously, supplying water at a predetermined flow rate at predetermined times and repeatedly until reprogramming and for monitoring water consumption during a predetermined time period, comprising: a water meter connected to a water outlet; a flow control valve connected to the water outlet; said system being enclosed in a sealed housing and said system having an interface unit connected to said water meter; a control unit connected to said water meter and flow control valve for controlling the flow rate of water through said water meter at predetermined times during a day; a gain unit and an actuation and retro-fitting unit connected to said control unit for actuating said control unit, said actuation and retro-fitting unit connected to said meter for actuating said flow control valve to supply the predetermined volume of water at a predetermined flow rate for a predetermined time period during a day on a daily basis; a communication unit connected to said control unit; a power unit for supplying electrical power to said assembly; and a protection and detection unit connected to said power unit to sense available power for said assembly and for preventing inversions of the polarity of said power unit; said sealed housing enclosing said system and protecting said system from environmental humidity, water and Appeal 2011-005425 Application 10/472,221 3 unauthorized intrusion, said assembly further comprising a computer receiving input signals from said communication unit. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 34 to 36, 38 to 41, 43, 50, 52, 54 to 55, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas (US 4,777,354; iss. Oct. 11, 1988), Gastouniotis (US 4,940,976; iss. Jul. 10, 1990), Gerken (US 4,888,702; iss. Dec. 19, 1989), Johnson (US 5,963,146; iss. Oct. 5, 1999), and Yamada (JP 355143613 A; pub. Nov. 10, 1980). 2. Claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas, Gastouniotis, Gerken, Johnson, Yamada, and Westfall (US 5,331,995; iss. Jul. 26, 1994). 3. Claims 56 to 58 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas, Gastouniotis, Gerken, and Yamada. 4. Claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas and Yamada. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the prior does not disclose or suggest a control unit for controlling the flow rate of water at predetermined times during the day, and a gain unit for actuating a flow control valve to supply a predetermined volume of water at a predetermined flow rate for a predetermined time period during a day on a daily basis? ANALYSIS In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on Thomas for teaching a control unit for controlling the flow of water through the water meter at Appeal 2011-005425 Application 10/472,221 4 predetermined times during the day (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that as Thomas gives examples of time periods like 2-3 days and 30 days, any desired time period is suggested. The Examiner relies on Gastouniotis, Gerken, and Johnson for teaching other aspects of the claimed subject matter but recognizes that none of these references discloses a control unit to supply a predetermined volume of water on a daily basis. The Examiner relies on Yamada for teaching this subject matter. The Appellant argues that neither Thomas nor Yamada discloses controlling the flow rate of water at predetermined times during the day so as to supply a predetermined volume of water. We agree. We find that Thomas discloses a system for controlling the supply of utility services to consumers that includes an actuator card that may be used to supply the utility over a time period such as 30 days or to prepay the purchase of a certain dollar amount of services (col. 1, ll. 1 to 2, col. 2, ll. 10 to 18). An indicator light is provided to alert the consumer when the predetermined time period has expired (col. 4, ll. 64 to 68). At the end of the predetermined time period, the consumer may use the actuator card to purchase additional utilities (col. 5, ll. 1 to 5). The Examiner has not directed our attention to disclosure in Thomas of controlling the rate of flow of a utility at predetermined times during a day or controlling the flow so as to supply a predetermined amount or volume of utilities during a day. Yamada discloses an apparatus to control the rate of flow of water into and out of a purification plant so that excellent control over water distribution is achieved without causing the water level in the purification tank to change greatly (pp. 1 to 2). Yamada does not disclose controlling the Appeal 2011-005425 Application 10/472,221 5 rate of flow of the water at predetermined times during a day but rather is directed to controlling the flow so that the level in the tank does not change greatly. In addition, Yamada is not directed to controlling the flow of water so as to supply a predetermined volume of water during a day. In our view, there is no teaching in either reference or in the combined teachings of the references of controlling the rate of flow of water at predetermined times during the day. The teaching in Thomas is not related to the control of the rate of flow of the utility and Yamada is not directed to controlling the rate of flow in relation to predetermined times during the day. The rate of flow of Yamada is changed so that the level of the tank does not change greatly and has no relation to a predetermined time during the day. In addition, neither reference alone or in combination teaches controlling the rate of flow of water to supply a predetermined volume of water. Thomas discloses controlling the flow of a utility over a specific time period not controlling the rate of flow of the utility. Thomas also discloses controlling the amount or volume of a utility in accordance with a prepaid amount but not controlling the rate of flow of the utility to achieve the amount or volume of a utility. In Thomas, a consumer can use the entire amount of prepaid utilities in one hour or conserve it and use it over a longer period of time. Yamada controls the rate of flow of water into the tank so that the level of the tank does not change greatly but does not control the overall volume of water flowing through the system much less a predetermined volume of water. Appeal 2011-005425 Application 10/472,221 6 In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examinerâ€™s rejection of claim 34 and claims 35, 36, 38 to 41, 43, 50, 52, and 54 to 55 dependent thereon. We will not sustain the rejection of claim 60 because claim 60 also requires controlling the rate of flow of water at predetermined times during the day to supply a predetermined volume of water. We will also not sustain the rejection of claim 42 because claim 42 is dependent on claim 34 and thus requires the same subject matter we found missing in Thomas and Yamada and because Westfall does not cure these deficiencies. We will not sustain the rejection of claims 56 and claims 57 to 58 dependent thereon because the Examiner relies on Yamada for teaching supplying a predetermined allocated daily volume of water to the consumer on a daily basis. As we stated above, we find that Yamada does not disclose controlling the supply of a predetermined volume of water, but rather controlling the rate of water into and out of a tank so that the level in the tank is not greatly changed. There is no disclosure in Yamada related to the volume of the water that can flow into or out of the tank. Any volume of water can flow into and out of the tank as long as the rate of flow into and out of the tank is controlled so that the level of the tank is not greatly changed. Appeal 2011-005425 Application 10/472,221 7 DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED hh