Ex Parte Randall

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2012

11174118 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 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.
11/174,118 07/01/2005 Bruce E. Randall 1505-0184 1045
28078 7590 04/26/2012
MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP
CHASE TOWER
111 MONUMENT CIRCLE
SUITE 3250
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
EXAMINER
BUI, BRYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2012 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 2010-000234
Application 11/174,118
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000234
Application 11/174,118
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 6, 7, and 21-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to external transformer correction in an
electricity meter. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An arrangement for use in an electricity meter, the
electricity meter operably coupled through an external
transformer to measure electricity consumption on a power line,
the arrangement operable to compensate for measurement
errors, the external transformer disposed external to the meter,
the arrangement comprising:
a) a source of digital measurement signals comprising an
internal sensor circuit and an analog-to-digital conversion
circuit, the internal sensor circuit configured to convert power
line signals received from the external transformer to
measurement signals, the analog-to-digital conversion circuit
configured to receive the measurement signals from the sensor
circuit and convert the measurement signals to digital
measurement signals;
b) a memory storing data representative of at least one
error rating for the external transformer;
c) a processing circuit operably coupled to the source of
digital measurement signals to receive digital measurement
signals therefrom; the processing circuit operable to obtain at
least one electricity consumption measurement value
corresponding to at least a part of the digital measurement
signals, and adjust the at least one electricity consumption
measurement value using at least a portion of the stored data.

Appeal 2010-000234
Application 11/174,118
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Baer
Begin
Fielden
US 4,837,504
US 4,989,155
US 5,563,506
Jun. 6, 1989
Jan. 29, 1991
Oct. 8, 1996

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baer and Fielden (and Begin as evidence for
combination).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1

Appellant contends that the error correction of Baer does not adjust or
change any waveform samples and that Baer merely accumulates energy
consumption samples in a register until a threshold value is reached, at
which time the watt-hour accumulation register is incremented. (App. Br.
7). Appellant further contends that:

In particular, the proposed combination does not teach or
suggest "a memory storing data representative of at least one
error rating for the ... transformer", nor a processing circuit that
is operable to "adjust the at least one electricity consumption
measurement value using at least a portion of the stored data"
The Examiner relies exclusively on Baer for both of these claim
elements.

Appeal 2010-000234
Application 11/174,118
4
(App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2). Appellant further contends that "Baer fails to
disclose anything that is operable to 'adjust the at least one electricity
consumption measurement value using at least a portion of the stored data'
Baer does not adjust any measurement value." (App. Br. 11).
The Examiner maintains that the Baer reference teaches a "memory
storing data representative of at least one error rating for the external
transformer" of independent claim 1. (Ans. 8-11). We agree with the
Examiner's claim interpretation and the interpretations of the power
reference and adopt them as our own.
Appellant contends that:
Claim 1 specifically recites the words "a memory storing
data representative of at least one error rating for the external
transformer", and not "a memory storing data configured to
compensate for error caused at least in part by a transformer".
The Examiner's attempt to equate these two different elements
is not appropriate.

(Reply Br. 2). We disagree with Appellant's contention and find that the
language of independent claim 1 does not set forth the express limitation as
to the express data which is stored or how the data is "representative of at
least one error rating" and the algorithm/methodology with which the data is
used to provide for error correction. Therefore, we find Appellant's
argument unavailing and find the Examiner's claim interpretation and
application of the prior art teachings to be reasonable. Therefore,
Appellant's argument does not show error in the Examiner's showing of
obviousness of independent claim 1.
Appellant specifically contends that "Baer does not adjust any value
at all, but rather simply increments a counter after a calibrated increment
value has been exceeded. As discussed in the Appeal Brief, Baer teaches a
Appeal 2010-000234
Application 11/174,118
5
calibration method that does not involve any adjustments. (Appeal Brief at
pp.7-8)." (Reply Br. 3). As discussed above, we find the Examiner's
responsive arguments to address Appellant's contention. With respect to the
Examiner's further clarification of the reasoning behind the rejection in the
(Ans. 11), Appellant further contends that "the value E1 is not adjusted at
all. Nothing is added to E1, nothing is subtracted from E1, and E1 is not
subjected to a multiplicative weighting factor." (Reply Br. 3). We find
Appellant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the express
language of independent claim 1 since the language of the claim does not
expressly recite any of the specific functions relied upon to differentiate the
claim. Therefore, Appellant's argument does not show error in the
Examiner's showing of obviousness of independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 7, Appellant relies upon
the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Appellant specifically contends
that dependent claim 3 recites "wherein the at least one electricity
consumption measurement value comprises at least one of a sampled current
value or a sampled voltage value" which is not taught by the Baer reference.
(Reply Br. 4). Appellant further contends that:
the electricity consumption value that is adjusted comprises
either at least one sampled voltage value or at least one sampled
current value. Even if Baer could be interpreted to adjust E1, it
is submitted that the value E1 of Baer does not comprise a
sampled voltage value or a sampled current value, but rather a
completely different value that is derived from many products
of multiplications of voltage and current samples.

(Reply Br. 5). We disagree with Appellant and find that the Baer reference
teaches that the input module 1 "generates a plurality of analog signals
Appeal 2010-000234
Application 11/174,118
6
which are proportional to the instantaneous values of the current I and the
voltage U of the phases in the conductors 2 and 3." (Col. 1, ll. 60-63).
Additionally, we note that the Baer reference teaches that:

It is known in the art of electricity meters that meter
components with nonideal characteristic curves, particularly,
current- and voltage transformers, and also amplifiers, produce
measurement errors. Attempts have been made to correct for
these nonideal characteristics, e.g., by storing the characteristic
curve of the current transformer and additional correction
factors to compensate for deviations in the gain of the
amplifiers, and then processing the signal with the aid of all
these correction values.

(Col. 3, ll. 9-18). Therefore, Appellant's arguments do not show error in the
Examiner's showing of obviousness of dependent claim 3.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Appellant relies upon the
arguments advanced with respect to dependent claim 3 which we found
unpersuasive of error.
Appellant additionally argues that:
the present invention stores information representative of an
error rating of an external transformer, which often is provided
on the external transformer housing. Thus, the meter can be
"calibrated" to the external transformer in the field without
additional testing, but rather by simply inputting the available
error rating information. Baer's use of comprehensive meter
testing cannot work with separately provided external
transformers and therefore does not provide any advantages of
the claimed invention.

(Reply Br. 6). We find Appellant's argument is not commensurate in scope
with the language of independent claim 1 or dependent claim 3. Therefore,
Appeal 2010-000234
Application 11/174,118
7
Appellant's argument does not show error in the Examiner's showing of
obviousness.

Claim 21
With respect to independent claim 21, Appellant relies upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1 which we found
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's showing of obviousness. We sustain
the rejection of independent claim 21 for the same reasons discussed above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claim 1 over the
combination of Baer and Fielden.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7,
and 21-25 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) (2009). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl