Joel Wenger et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2019

14342270 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2019)

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.
14/342,270 02/28/2014 Joel Wenger 516619US 5364
157616 7590 09/25/2019
OBLON/KUDELSKI
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2019 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOEL WENGER and CORINNE LE BUHAN

Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–16. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on August 13, 2019. We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NAGRAVISION S.A.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to utility-meter communications.
Spec. 1:11–13.2 Utility meters measure electricity, water, or gas
consumption. Spec. 8:12–15. In one embodiment, a data concentrator
collects data from the utility meter and adds it to a report. Spec. 12:10–14.
This data may include a difference between two consumption indices.
Spec. 11:7–10; 11:23–12:4. Also, the report identifies a utility provider and
the meter. Spec. 12:20–24. The destination data concentrator sends the
report to the identified utility provider. Spec. 12:10–14. According to
Appellant, the invention allows consumers to receive a utility from a first
provider during the day and another provider in the evening. Appeal Br. 3
(citing Spec. 15:16–22, 13:9–14:14).
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for managing utility meter communications within
a network comprising a plurality of utility meters each associated
and connected to a plurality of utility management centers
through a plurality of intermediate data concentrators, each
utility meter being identified by a utility meter identifier and
being adapted to produce and send utility meter messages to a
destination data concentrator identified by a destination data
concentrator identifier, each destination data concentrator being
adapted to produce and send reports to said management center
identified by a management center identifier, said method
comprising the steps of:
sending utility meter messages from a utility meter to said
destination data concentrator, each utility meter message
including a metering data measurement reported by said utility
meter, said utility meter identifier, said destination data
concentrator identifier and said management center identifier;

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Substitute Specification filed
February 28, 2014.
Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270

3
determining metering counter differential consumption
values, each based on a difference of two metering counter
consumption indexes measured by said utility meter within a
time period interval;
sending, from the destination data concentrator towards
the utility management center to which said utility meter is
associated, a report containing a collection of said metering
counter differential consumption values together with the utility
meter identifier to which the metering counter differential
consumption values refer.
Appeal Br. 17.3
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence.
Name Reference Date
Ransom US 2005/0131583 A1 June 16, 2005
Borleske US 2005/0240540 A1 Oct. 27, 2005
Di Martini US 2008/0177678 A1 July 24, 2008
Cumeralto US 2010/0026517 A1 Feb. 4, 2010

THE REJECTIONS4
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Di Martini. Final 4–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 7, 8, 10–12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Di Martini and Cumeralto. Final 11–17.

3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final”)
mailed October 13, 2016; the Advisory Action (“Advisory”) mailed on
February 8, 2017; the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 30, 2017 as
amended by the Supplemental Brief on August 14, 2017; the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 6, 2017; and the Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed January 5, 2018.
4 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, which was
presented in the Final Office Action. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270

4
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Di Martini and Ransom. Final 17–19.
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Di Martini and Ransom. Final 19.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER DI MARTINI
The Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner determines that the subject matter of independent claim
1 would have been obvious over Di Martini. Final 4. The Examiner finds
that “Di Martini does not explicitly disclose that each utility meter message
includes said management center identifier.” Final 5. According to the
Examiner, “the cited disclosures of Di Martini suggest that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
have inserted the data center identifier into the data message when the user’s
utility meter transfers the data.” Ans. 7. The Examiner determines that doing
so would reduce processing time and “electric power consumption.” Ans. 7.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that Di Martini does not send messages containing
three identifiers. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues that, because the data is
made available to other entities in a different way than the claimed
invention, Di Martini’s utility-meter messages do not need to include a
management-center identifier. Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellant argues
that Di Martini’s system is for a single utility. Appeal Br. 5. According to
Appellant, Di Martini gathers data, transmits the data to a gateway and then
to the utility. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that Di Martini merely makes
Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270

5
the data available to other entities through the back-office control center and
does not need to send the message recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3.
Issue
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
by finding that Di Martini would have taught or suggested sending the meter
message recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Claim 1 recites, in part, “each utility meter message including a
metering data measurement reported by said utility meter, said utility meter
identifier, said destination data concentrator identifier and said management
center identifier.” As for the “management center identifier,” claim 1 further
requires “a plurality of utility meters each associated and connected to a
plurality of utility management centers through a plurality of intermediate
data concentrators,” and the management center is “identified by a
management center identifier.”
The Specification provides a non-limiting example that illustrates this
feature. In particular, Figure 1, below, shows a possible smart-grid network
topology. Spec. 5:24.

Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270

6

Figure 1 shows a schematic illustration of a star-shaped network of end-user
utility meters (U1 to U8), data concentrators (C1 to C4), and utility-provider
management centers (P1 to P3). Spec. 5:17–19. To identify a source and a
destination in an open communication network, the messages sent over the
network include the source utility-meter identifier, the destination data-
concentrator identifier, and the utility-provider identifier. Spec. 12:20–24.
An identifier may be a unique value associated with the equipment, a
network-address identifier, among other things. Spec. 12:24–13:2. Although
the claim is not limited to this example, it nevertheless informs our
understanding of the recited management-center identifier.
The Examiner acknowledges that Di Martini’s messages lack a
management-center identifier. Final 5. The Examiner, however, finds that Di
Martini’s utility meters send data to an intermediate aggregator, which, in
turn, sends metering data to the utility-management centers. Final 5 (citing
Di Martini ¶¶ 20–22, 86). The Examiner concludes, without providing
sufficient supporting evidence, that it would have been obvious to send the
management-center identifier because doing so would eliminate “the need
for the intermediate aggregator to search its database to find the Internet
Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270

7
address of the utility office to which to send the metering data for each of
thousands, or even millions, of electric utility meters.” Final 5; see also
Ans. 7.
But, as Appellant points out, Di Martini’s system is for a single utility.
Appeal Br. 5. To be sure, Di Martini teaches that data is transferred
“electronically to different back office control centers.” Di Martini ¶ 21,
discussed in Ans. 4–5. Yet Di Martini explains that those back office control
centers are “within the utility.” Di Martini ¶ 21 (emphasis added). This is
unlike the claimed method, which involves “a plurality of utility
management centers.”
In another embodiment, Di Martini teaches making data available to
“multiple clients.” Di Martini ¶ 84, discussed in Ans. 11. For instance, Di
Martini explains that the actual end users include the billing system,
Independent System Operators (ISOs), meter reading agents, load research,
among other entities. Di Martini ¶ 86, cited in Final 5. But Di Martini only
makes the data available to these entities for later retrieval. Di Martini ¶ 84.
So there would be no need for the intermediate aggregator to search a
database to find these other entities, as the Examiner reasons. Final 5; see
also Ans. 7. On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
rationale for modifying Di Martini is unsupported. See Reply Br. 3–4.
Because the Examiner has not provided supporting evidence, we are
constrained to conclude that the Examiner’s determination rests on
speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction of the
claimed invention.
Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1 by finding that Di Martini would have taught or
Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270

8
suggested sending the meter message recited in claim 1. We do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1, and for similar reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 14, which depend from claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 4.
Like claim 1, claim 16 recites generating utility meter messages that
contain a management center identifier for one of the plurality of centers.
See Appeal Br. 22–23. So, for similar reasons, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 16. See Appeal Br. 8 (discussing claim 16).
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Like claim 1, claim 10 recites generating utility meter messages that
contain a management center identifier for one of the plurality of centers. In
particular, claim 10 recites, in part, “a plurality of utility management
centers, each utility management center being identified by a management
center identifier” and utility meters adapted to “generate utility meter
messages” comprising one management center identifier. Appeal Br. 19–20.
The additional reference, Cumeralto, is not relied upon to teach meter
messages and the plurality of utility management centers, which is missing
from Di Martini. See Final 15. So the Examiner does not show that
Cumeralto cures the deficiency discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claim 10 for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with claim 1.
For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 7,
8, 10–12, and 15, which depend from claims 1 or 10 and are also rejected
under Di Martini and Cumeralto. See Appeal Br. 8–15 (discussing claims 7,
8, 10–12, and 15).
Appeal 2018-002421
Application 14/342,270

9
We also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 5, 6, 9, and
13 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. The
Examiner did not rely on the additional references, Ransom and Borleske, to
teach meter messages and the plurality of utility management centers, and,
thus, the Examiner does not show that these references cure the deficiency
discussed above. See Final 17–19.
CONCLUSION

We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16.
Claims
Rejected
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 14, 16 § 103 Di Martini  None 1–3, 14, 16
4, 7, 8, 10–12,
15
§ 103 Di Martini,
Cumeralto 
None 4, 7, 8, 10–12,
15
5, 6, 13 § 103 Di Martini,
Ransom
None 5, 6, 13
9 § 103 Di Martini,
Borleske
None 9
Outcome None 1–16

REVERSED