Ex Parte Randall

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2012

11055188 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 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.
11/055,188 02/10/2005 Bruce E. Randall 1505-0182 2228
28078 7590 02/28/2012
MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP
CHASE TOWER
111 MONUMENT CIRCLE
SUITE 3250
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
EXAMINER
WONG, ALBERT KANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2012 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 BRUCE E. RANDALL
____________

Appeal 2009-013164
Application 11/055,188
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT,
and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-24, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-013164
Application 11/055,188

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to arrangements for providing power to
circuits within a utility meter (see Spec. 3:15-19).
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An arrangement for providing power in an RF
transmitter, the RF transmitter operably connected to receive
commodity consumption information from a measurement
circuit of a utility meter, the arrangement comprising:

a first power supply operable to provide power to metering
circuitry within the utility meter, the metering circuitry including an
analog to digital converter and at least one processor;

a bank of capacitors operably coupled to provide power to the
RE transmitter at least when power requirements of the RF transmitter
exceed an amount of power available from the first power supply.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cumeralto (US 2002/0109607) and Provost (US
5,924,051).
Claims 9-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cumeralto, Wikipedia (Capacitor,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor (viewed on October 30, 2007)), and
Wood (US 5,805,433).
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cumeralto, Provost, and Croushore (US 6,278,357 B1).
Claims 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cumeralto and Croushore.
Appeal 2009-013164
Application 11/055,188

3
Appellant’s Contentions
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-8 over Cumeralto
and Provost, Appellant contends that the proposed combination is improper
because the battery 54 of Cumeralto, as the claimed first power supply, does
not provide power to the metering circuitry when Cumeralto is combined
with Provost (App. Br. 7). With respect to claims 3, 6, and 7, Appellant
further argues that no evidence was shown that: 1) using “a bank of
ultracapacitors” or a plurality of capacitors connected in series would be a
suitable replacement for the capacitor in Cumeralto (App. Br. 8-10); and 2) a
resistance would inherently be coupled across the series-connected
capacitors (App. Br. 11).
With respect to the rejection of claims 9-18 over Cumeralto,
Wikipedia, and Wood, Appellant relies on arguments similar to those raised
for claim 1-3 and 6-8 (see App. Br. 11-17).
Regarding the rejection of claims 19-24 over Cumeralto and
Croushore and of claims 4 and 5 over Cumeralto, Provost, and Croushore,
Appellant contends that the ordinary skill in the art would not have found it
obvious to use temperature sensors of Croushore in the device of Cumeralto
to arrive at the invention recited in claim 19 (App. Br. 17-20). Additionally,
Appellant argues that the proposed combination does not discuss any risk
associated with transmitting below a certain temperature, and cannot render
claim 20 obvious (App. Br. 19-20).

Appeal 2009-013164
Application 11/055,188

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner properly finds that Provost
suggests using an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter to be used with the
metering system of Cumeralto which is powered by a battery (see Ans. 3-4).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner’s analysis in response to
Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 8-11) and specifically, with the assertion that
the skilled artisan would have combined the references to take advantage of
the benefits associated with using an A/D converter and powering the
metering circuitry by a battery or a bank of capacitors (Ans. 8-9).
Additionally, we disagree with Appellant’s position (Reply Br. 2) that
the proposed combination results in replacing the meter module shown in
Figure 2 of Cumeralto with the metering device of Provost. We note that
Figure 2 of Cumeralto illustrates a meter module coupled with a point
encoder transmitter (PET) 22 having a battery, whereas Provost discloses an
electricity metering device which also includes a battery. Therefore, the
teaching value of Provost is in that one source of power supplied to the
metering circuitry, which included an analog-to-digital converter, may be a
battery, instead of bodily incorporating one metering circuitry for another
(see Provost, col. 5, ll. 46-64).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in relying on
the teachings of Provost, which is related to a metering circuitry including an
analog-to-digital converter, to modify Cumeralto because the combination
Appeal 2009-013164
Application 11/055,188

5
would predictably yield no more than one would expect from such a
combination. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Similarly, for the same reasons stated above, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to the combination of
Cumeralto and Provost with Wikipedia, Wood, or Croushore to teach or
suggest the rejected claims.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in
rejecting the claims as being obvious. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejections of claims 1-24.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 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

ke