Hach Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 19, 2021

2020000663 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021)

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.
14/923,201 10/26/2015 Brian Alan Harmon P2015-0021-US01 (504) 1026
101910 7590 04/19/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
RAHMJOO, MANUCHEHR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@hach.com
taschulz@hach.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN ALAN HARMON and
THEO GROVER TILLSON BARKER
____________

Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hach
Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is a method and product for (1) capturing an
image of information from a measuring instrument; (2) extracting plural
elements within the information; and (3) storing the elements in a formatted
file. See Abstract. The elements comprise measurement data and
identification data associated with the measuring instrument. Id. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method for capturing information from a measuring
instrument, comprising:
capturing, using an image capture device separate from a
measuring instrument, an image of information displayed on the
measuring instrument, wherein the measuring instrument lacks
electronic communication capability and wherein the
information comprises measurement result data displayed by
the measuring instrument after an analysis is performed by the
measuring instrument and at least one tag element having
identification data coded with the at least one tag element;
wherein the tag element is at least one of a quick
response code, a two dimensional barcode, a barcode, and a
service identification tag and wherein the tag element
corresponds to identification data identifying the measuring
instrument;
the identification data comprising data relating to at least
one of: unit type, notation type, device type, device
identification, device location, device vendor, device
manufacturer, and current user;
analyzing, using a processor, the image using an image
analysis technique to identify the information included in the
image, wherein the analyzing comprises utilizing the
identification data within the tag element to facilitate
identification of the measurement result data;
extracting, using a processor, the information from the
image; and
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

3
storing, in a storage device, the information in a
formatted file, wherein the formatted file comprises the
measurement results correlated with the identification data of
the measuring instrument.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by LaFrance (US 2013/0176141 A1; published
July 11, 2013). Final Act. 2–4.2
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by McCarthy (US 2014/0263618 A1; published Sept. 18, 2014).
Final Act. 4–8.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER LAFRANCE
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that LaFrance
discloses a user input device and utility meter, where the utility meter has a
display upon which a QR (“Quick Response”) barcode is shown as well as
utility usage information. The Examiner also finds LaFrance’s system sends
data to the meter’s processor to calculate the utility usage that is then output
to the meter’s display to appear in a human readable format. Final Act. 2–3;
Ans. 5–6. According to the Examiner, LaFrance’s user input device
acquires a digital photograph of the QR barcode on the utility meter’s face or
display. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 6–7.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed March
8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 5, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 3, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
(4) the Reply Brief filed November 4, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

4
The Examiner also finds that Appellant’s Specification notes that the
disclosed instrument may be a legacy instrument and, therefore, lack
electronic communication capability. Ans. 3–4.
Appellant argues that LaFrance fails to disclose a measuring
instrument, let alone capturing measurement data by an image the user takes
of a QR barcode. See Appeal Br. 14. According to Appellant, LaFrance
does not teach a measuring instrument as claimed, namely an instrument that
(1) performs an analysis resulting in measurement results, and (2) displays
the measurement results corresponding to the analysis. Id. According to
Appellant LaFrance captures an image a QR code, but not measurement
result data. See id. Appellant adds that LaFrance’s device has electronic
communication capability unlike the recited measuring instrument lacking
this capability. Reply Br. 16.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that LaFrance discloses:
(1) a measuring instrument lacking electronic communication
capability; and
(2) capturing an image of information displayed on the measuring
instrument, where the information comprises (a) measurement result data
displayed by the measuring instrument after an analysis is performed by the
measuring instrument, and (b) at least one tag element.

Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

5
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing a key disputed limitation of claim 1, namely a
“measuring instrument.” The Specification does not define the term
“measuring instrument,” unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave
no doubt as to their meaning. See Spec. ¶¶ 11, 32 (defining various terms
explicitly). Although the Specification does not refer to a “measuring
instrument” explicitly, the Specification’s paragraph 18 nevertheless
explains that instrument 100 in Figure 1 can be, for example, a legacy
instrument with one or more result displays 101 including an alphanumeric
LCD type or analog display. Notably, because this instrument lacks
electronic communication capability, if a user wants to transfer the
instrument’s readings to another device, the user must record the results
manually. Spec. ¶ 18.
Although this description informs our understanding of the recited
“measuring instrument,” it is not limiting apart from the instrument lacking
electronic communication capability—a key element of the recited
“measuring instrument” in claim 1.
Therefore, we construe this term with its plain meaning in the art. To
the extent the Specification’s permissive language in paragraph 18
contemplates a legacy instrument that may or may not lack communication
capability, claim 1 nonetheless requires that the measuring instrument lacks
electronic communication capability. Accordingly, we construe “measuring
instrument” as one lacking electronic communication capability.
According to a noted science and technology dictionary, the term
“measuring instrument” is defined as “[a] device serving to indicate or
record one or more of the electrical conditions in an electrical circuit.”
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

6
Measuring Instrument, THE WORDSWORTH DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE &
TECHNOLOGY 560 (1995). That definition is consistent with the
Specification’s exemplary description of the term discussed above. See
Spec. ¶ 18.
Therefore, we construe the term “measuring instrument” as a device
serving to indicate or record one or more electrical conditions in an electrical
circuit.
Under this construction, LaFrance’s utility meter in Figure 2 is a
measuring instrument given its metering circuitry 32 and processor 34
configured to sense the amount of utility consumed at the metering location.
See LaFrance ¶ 20. LaFrance’s utility meter can be an electricity meter,
where metering circuitry 32 (1) includes sensors that measure voltage,
current, and time; and (2) outputs data collected by the sensors to the
processor 34, where the data is used to calculate utility usage. Id. Processor
34 then outputs utility usage data to display 36 where this data appears in a
human readable format. Id.
Although LaFrance’s utility meter is a “measuring instrument” under
its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “measuring instrument”
must also be one that lacks electronic communication capability under the
terms of claim 1. LaFrance’s utility meter in Figure 2, however, shows a
communication interface 38 that is the means through which the processor
34 receives signals from other devices. See LaFrance ¶¶ 20, 27.
Accordingly, we fail to see—nor has the Examiner shown—that LaFrance’s
utility meter is a measuring instrument lacking electronic communication
capability as claimed. The Examiner’s anticipation rejection over LaFrance
is, therefore, erroneous for that reason alone.
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

7
Additionally, the Examiner’s finding that LaFrance anticipates the
“capturing . . . an image of information” limitation is likewise problematic
on this record. As noted above, claim 1 recites two key aspects of the
information of the claimed “image of information”; that is, the imaged
information comprises (1) measurement result data displayed by the
measuring instrument, and (2) at least one tag element. Here, the Examiner
finds that the LaFrance’s captured image includes (1) a utility meter reading
corresponding to the claimed measurement result data, and (2) a barcode
corresponding to the claimed tag element. See Ans. 6–7. Although
LaFrance’s paragraph 23 explains that a user input device may acquire a
digital photograph of a key or code (e.g., a QR barcode) on the face or
display 36 of the utility meter, LaFrance is silent regarding exactly where on
the utility meter’s face or display the key or code is located, much less its
particular orientation on the meter’s face or display. Given this uncertainty,
we cannot say—nor has the Examiner shown—that acquiring a digital
photograph of the “tag element,” namely the key or code on the meter’s face
or display, would necessarily also acquire the measurement result data on
that display.
We reach this conclusion even if it were probable that acquiring a
digital photograph of a QR barcode that appears on the utility meter’s
display 36 would also capture the utility usage data that likewise appears on
that display. Here again, given LaFrance’s silence regarding the exact
location and orientation of the barcode on the meter’s display, we cannot say
that capturing an image of this barcode would necessarily also capture the
measurement result data—despite LaFrance disposing both pieces of
information on the same display. Although it may be likely that both pieces
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

8
of information would be captured given their common disposition on the
display, that does not mean that this is necessarily the case—a crucial
requirement for inherent anticipation. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743,
745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities
or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given
set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 20 that recite
commensurate limitations.3

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER MCCARTHY
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that McCarthy
discloses a merchant point of sale (POS) device corresponding to the
claimed measuring instrument, where a system including the POS device
calculates a total sale price for the goods or services purchased during a
purchase transaction. Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 9–10. According to the
Examiner, the POS device is communicatively coupled with a scanner
device 106 to include a display 107, where information such as a Quick
Response code (QR code) may be displayed to the customer so that an image

3 We note in passing that it is unclear whether the “identification data
identifying the measuring instrument” in line 10 of claim 1 corresponds to
the preceding instance of identification data, namely “identification data
coded with at least one tag element” in line 7. Despite this ambiguity, we
nonetheless presume that the recited identification data refers to the same
data and, therefore, the term “identification data” in line 10 was intended to
be “the identification data” for proper antecedent basis. We also note that
the term “the measurement results” in line 20 of claim 1 likewise lacks
antecedent basis.
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

9
of the machine readable code may be captured by a customer’s wireless
device. Final Act. 6; Ans. 9–10. The Examiner also finds that McCarthy
discloses a transaction identifier for display on an automated teller machine
(ATM), where a geographic identifier is associated with a transaction
identifier. See Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 8–9. The Examiner adds that McCarthy
illustrates an ATM device corresponding to the measurement instrument.
See Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that McCarthy does not teach measurement data as
McCarthy is directed towards transferring funds wirelessly and an ATM, and
therefore does not teach measuring or a measurement instrument. Appeal
Br. 14–15; Reply Br. 18. Appellant further contends that McCarthy’s
barcode does not include identification data associated with the measuring
instrument and measurement data, with the identification data coded within a
tag element. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 17–18.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that McCarthy discloses (a) a measuring instrument and measurement result
data and (b) at least one tag element having identification data coded with
the at least one tag element, the tag element corresponds to identification
data identifying the measuring instrument?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we agree with Appellant that McCarthy does not teach
a measuring instrument or measurement result data. As noted above, the
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

10
Examiner maps the recited “measuring instrument” to McCarthy’s POS
device or, alternatively, McCarthy’s ATM. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 8–10.
Both these mappings, however, are problematic on this record. As
noted previously, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a “measuring
instrument” is a device serving to indicate or record one or more electrical
conditions in an electrical circuit.
McCarthy’s POS device is not a “measuring instrument” under this
construction. McCarthy’s merchant POS device 104 (1) calculates a total
sale price for goods or services purchased during a transaction, and (2)
displays a barcode or QR code to the customer, where the barcode represents
an alphanumeric code from a transaction identifier. See McCarthy ¶¶ 43, 53;
Figs. 1–2.
To the extent the Examiner finds that McCarthy’s POS device used in
consumer transactions somehow indicates or records electrical conditions in
an electrical circuit to constitute a “measuring instrument,” there is no
evidence on this record to substantiate such a finding. Nor will we speculate
in that regard here in the first instance on appeal.
We reach the same conclusion regarding McCarthy’s ATM that the
Examiner alternatively maps to the recited “measuring instrument.” See
Ans. 8–10. As McCarthy’s paragraph 80 explains, McCarthy’s ATM
dispenses funds, and can receive various account and identification numbers
in connection with that dispensation. In addition, users can not only swipe a
debit or credit card and enter personal identification numbers (PINs) into an
ATM, but also capture transaction identifiers, such as QR codes, that are
displayed on, or provided from, the ATM. McCarthy ¶ 82.
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

11
McCarthy also describes an ATM device 1010 in Figure 10. After (1)
the ATM device receives a unique transaction identifier or code from mobile
device host application 1018, and (2) the user initiates a money withdrawal
transaction, the user’s mobile device can capture the transaction identifier
that was previously provided to the ATM by photographing or scanning an
image of a QR code displayed on the ATM device. McCarthy ¶¶ 85–87. As
shown in McCarthy’s Figures 10 to 14, McCarthy’s ATM device not only
receives various data, such as card numbers, identifiers, and other data
associated with withdrawal transactions, but also outputs various data to the
user and payment service provider. See generally McCarthy ¶¶ 85–108.
Moreover, McCarthy’s Figures 10 to 14 show the ATM includes various
keys to input information as well as a display screen.
Although McCarthy’s ATM is an electronic device that, among other
things, transfers and displays data, including QR code images, in connection
with dispensing funds, we cannot say—nor has the Examiner shown—that
the ATM is a “measuring instrument” under the term’s broadest reasonable
interpretation, namely a device serving to indicate or record one or more
electrical conditions in an electrical circuit.
To the extent the Examiner finds that McCarthy’s ATM device used
in consumer transactions somehow indicates or records electrical conditions
in an electrical circuit to constitute a “measuring instrument,” there is no
evidence on this record to substantiate such a finding. Nor will we speculate
in that regard here in the first instance on appeal.
In short, because the Examiner fails to show that McCarthy’s POS
device and ATM are “measuring instruments” under the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

12
alternative mapping, the Examiner’s anticipation rejection is erroneous for
that reason alone.
In addition, the Examiner’s anticipation rejection over McCarthy is
erroneous for yet another reason. As noted previously, the Examiner relies
upon McCarthy’s ATM and POS device for teaching a “measurement
instrument” and the identification data encoded with the tag element. Ans.
8–10. The Examiner, however, relies upon the functionality associated with
McCarthy’s ATM for teaching a geographic identifier corresponding to the
recited identification data and tag element. Ans. 8–9. Notably, the POS
device is disclosed in Figure 1 of McCarthy, but, as noted above, the ATM is
disclosed in a different embodiment, namely that associated with Figure 10.
See McCarthy ¶¶ 16, 25, 44–51, 85–92.
It is well settled that to anticipate, a prior art reference must not only
disclose all recited elements within the four comers of the document, but
must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIN,
Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Thus, it is not
enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention,
which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it
includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow
combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 1371. By combining the
teachings of McCarthy’s ATM embodiment in Figure 10 and POS device
embodiment in Figure 7 to arrive at the invention of claim 1, the Examiner
has not shown that McCarthy’s relied-upon features are necessarily arranged
as claimed. Therefore, on this record, we agree with Appellant that
McCarthy does not anticipate the identification data being coded within a tag
Appeal 2020-000663
Application 14/923,201

13
element, where an image of information comprises measurement result data
and the at least one tag element, at least necessarily arranged as claimed.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 11 and 20 that recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2–10 and 12–19 for
similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 11, 20 102(a)(1) LaFrance 1, 11, 20
1–20 102(a)(1) McCarthy 1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED