Ex Parte Mandy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2013

10537714 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAMIEN MANDY
____________________

Appeal 2011-000015
Application 10/537,714
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000015
Application 10/537,714

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
The disclosure relates to a public parking meter capable of accessing a
remote server and engaging in short-range communications with a remote
terminal (Spec., p. 1, ll. 3–13).
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A parking meter-comprising:
a communication module to access a remote server via a
predetermined communication network;
a short-range communication module adapted to dialog
via a short-range communication channel with a short-range
communication module of a remote terminal; and
a communication router adapted to receive information
from the remote terminal via said short range communication
channel so as to route said received information from the
remote terminal to the remote server via said predetermined
communication network and receive information from the
remote server via said predetermined communication network
and to route information received from said remote server to
said remote terminal via said communication channel.

Appeal 2011-000015
Application 10/537,714

3
Rejections1
The Examiner rejected claims 1–92 under 35 U.S.C §102(e) as
anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 7,019,670 (“Bahar”).

Issue
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issue:
Does Bahar disclose a parking meter with “a communication router
adapted to receive information from the remote terminal via said short range
communication channel so as to route said received information from the
remote terminal to the remote server via said predetermined communication
network and receive information from the remote server via said
predetermined communication network and to route information received
from said remote server to said remote terminal via said communication
channel,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, and have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments.3

1 The Appeal Brief addresses a rejection of claims 5 and 7–9 under 35
U.S.C. §112, second paragraph (App. Br. 5–6) but this rejection has been
withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 5) and is therefore not before us.
2 Appellant notes that page 4 of the rejection from which this appeal is taken
only identifies claims 1–5 in summarizing the basis for rejection (App. Br.
5). The Office Action Summary (Final Office Action 1) and the Detailed
Action (Final Office Action 4–6) identify and provide reasons for rejection
of claims 1–9, and Appellant requests reversal of the rejections of claims 1–
9 (App. Br. 13; Rep. Br. 2). Thus, we determine this is inadvertent error and
our decision is accordingly directed to claims 1–9.
Appeal 2011-000015
Application 10/537,714

4
We find Bahar is directed to a parking meter that includes a data
transceiver that transmits and/or receives data to and from the parking meter
(Bahar, col. 8, ll. 65–67). This allows the parking meter to communicate
with mobile handheld computers and with a remotely situated central
computer station (id., col. 8, l. 67 – col. 9, l. 4).
Appellant contends that Bahar’s data transceiver is not a
“communication router” as that term is used in claim 1 (App. Br. 10–11).
Specifically, Appellant contends that Bahar’s data transceiver provides
communication either between the parking meter and the central station or
between the parking meter and a mobile device, but does not provide
communication between the central station and the mobile device (App. Br.
8–9). This argument is predicated on Appellant’s assertion that “one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that a communication router …
includes a ‘device that determines the next network point to which to
forward a data packed toward its destination, a process known as routing’”
(App. Br. 10, emphasis by Appellant).
This argument is not persuasive. During examination, claims must be
given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Specification does not clearly
define “router” or “to route,” and a relevant technical dictionary notes that
“[a] router is, in the strictest terms, an interface between two networks”

3 Appellant presents arguments for claim 1 without presenting arguments for
separate patentability of any other claim. We therefore treat claim 1 as
representative of all claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Except for our
ultimate decision, the other claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2011-000015
Application 10/537,714

5
(Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 19th ed. (CMP Books, 2003), p. 688). We
give minimal weight to Appellant’s citation of a Wikipedia entry for
“Router” (Rep. Br. 6) because of its dubious reliability and the fact that this
definition may not be the same definition at the time of Appellant’s
invention. See, e.g., Ex parte Three-Dimensional Media Group Ltd., No.
2009-004087, 2010 WL 3017280 (BPAI 2010) (nonprecedential), at *17;
see also Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 2010 WL 4368469 (5th Cir. 2010)
(unpublished), at *2 (noting Wikipedia’s unreliability and citing Badasa v.
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910–11 (8th Cir. 2008)).
Since the data transceiver in Bahar provides an “interface between
two networks” and performs the functions recited in the claim, we conclude
that the Examiner did not err in finding that Bahar discloses a parking meter
with a communication router having the recited characteristics.
We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bahar.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9 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
msc