Ex Parte Takemura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 11, 2017

13499258 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2017)

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. 13/499,258 03/29/2012 Kouichi Takemura 11329/251 3698 83377 7590 BGL/Panasonic P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER SATANOVSKY, ALEXANDER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2857 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/11/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOUICHI TAKEMURA and FUMIKAZU SHIBA Appeal 2016-008006 Application 13/499,25 81 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’ rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., LTD. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-008006 Application 13/499,258 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal is directed to a flow meter device to be used, for example, on a home gas meter, where the device measures fluid flow based on propagation times of ultrasonic signals. Spec. H 1, 3. The flow meter device is designed to minimize power consumption by reducing the number of times measurements are taken and fluid flow is calculated, thereby increasing the device’s efficiency. Id. 19, 20, 39, 40, and 75. Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative and appears below: 1. A flow meter device comprising: a first transducer provided on a fluid passage to transmit/receive an ultrasonic signal, and a second transducer provided on the fluid passage to transmit/receive the ultrasonic signal; a time measuring means for measuring a propagation time of the ultrasonic signal propagating between the first and second transducers; a fluid flow calculating means which performs in succession a unit measuring step, and calculates a fluid flow based on propagation times corresponding to the number of times the unit measuring step is performed, the unit measuring step comprising measuring the propagation time of the ultrasonic signal in a forward direction and the propagation time of the ultrasonic signal in a reverse direction by the time measuring means, such that a direction in which the ultrasonic signal is transmitted and received between the transducers is changed between the forward direction and the reverse direction; a time difference detecting means which detects a difference between the propagation time in the forward direction and the propagation time in the reverse direction in the unit measuring step; and a measurement control means which selects an arbitrary unit measuring step among a series of unit measuring steps performed in succession, and controls the number of times a unit measuring step following the arbitrary unit measuring step is performed, 2 Appeal 2016-008006 Application 13/499,258 based on the time difference detected by the time difference detecting means. App. Br. 19. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of unpatentability: Lynnworth Nagaoka Umekage Groeschel US 3,575,050 US 6,065,351 US 2004/0267464 A1 US 2007/0039399 A1 Apr. 13, 1971 May 23, 2000 Dec. 30, 2004 Feb. 22, 2007 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL I. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Umekage in view of Nagaoka and Lynnworth (Final Act. 2—8); and II. Claims 3—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Umekage in view of Nagaoka, Lynnworth, and Groeschel (Final Act. 8—14). OPINION Any initial inquiry into the propriety of a prior art rejection first requires the determination of the precise scope of the claimed subject matter. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “[Djuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 3 Appeal 2016-008006 Application 13/499,258 When claim terms are written in “means-plus-fimction” format, however, they must be interpreted as limited to the corresponding structure or structures described in the Specification or equivalents thereof, consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). The Examiner has the initial burden of interpreting the “means-plus-function” limitations, so that the claims can be compared to the prior art. Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195 (explaining that “the PTO was required by statute to look to Schuler’s specification and construe the ‘means’ language recited in the last segment of claim 1 as limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.”). Because sole independent claim 1 in this case contains several “means-plus-fimction” limitations, it must be so interpreted. The Examiner, however, has failed to carry this burden. As correctly argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 2, 5), the Examiner sets forth for the first time in the Answer (Ans. 3 4) where support exists in the Specification for the recited time measuring means, fluid flow calculating means, time difference detecting means, and measurement control means. Appellants are also correct (Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner misidentifies the “measurement control means” as element 11 in Figure 1 rather than element 7. Ans. 4. The Specification makes clear that, in Figure 1, “a measurement control means 7 controls the overall operation of the transmission and reception performed by the first transducer 2 and the second transducer 3. The measurement control means 7 includes a trigger means 8, a repeating means 9, a delay means 10, and a measurement step control means 77.” Spec. 151 (emphasis added). Thus, on this record, the Examiner fails to correctly identify the structure corresponding to the recited “measurement control means,” and by 4 Appeal 2016-008006 Application 13/499,258 extension, the “trigger means,” “repeating means,” and “delay means” encompassed therein. Without such identification, the claims cannot be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and compared with the closest prior art. In the absence of a properly construed claim, a determination of obviousness cannot be made. For this reason, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7. SUMMARY The Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—7 is reversed. REVERSED 5