Eaton CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 25, 20212020002199 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/825,243 08/13/2015 Koustubh Dnyandeo Ashtekar 14-VCB-227 5918 101730 7590 03/25/2021 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC EATON CORPORATION 600 GRANT STREET 44TH FLOOR PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2021 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): ipmail@eckertseamans.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOUSTUBH DNYANDEO ASKTEKAR, JAMES JEFFREY BENKE, JIONG CHEN, LI YU, FANGJI WU, and RONALD DALE HARTZEL Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 Technology Center 2800 Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, BRIAN D. RANGE, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6–12, and 16–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Eaton Intelligent Power Limited. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to a circuit breaker assembly with a modular component monitoring system. Spec. 1:5–8. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A circuit breaker assembly component monitoring system structured to monitor circuit breaker assembly component characteristics, said system comprising: a record assembly including selected nominal data for a selected circuit breaker component; a number of sensor assemblies structured to measure a number of actual component characteristics of a number of selected circuit breaker components and to transmit actual component characteristic output data; a comparison assembly structured to receive an electronic signal from said record assembly and said sensor assemblies, to compare said sensor assembly actual component characteristic output data to said selected nominal data and to provide an indication signal as to whether said sensor assembly output data is acceptable when compared to the selected nominal data; an output assembly including a communication assembly and an output device; said communication assembly structured to receive said indication signal from said comparison assembly and to communicate a signal to said output device; each sensor assembly in electronic communication with said comparison assembly; and said comparison assembly in electronic communication with said communication assembly. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated May 21, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed September 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated November 26, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed January 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Eastcott US 4,635,769 Jan. 13, 1987 Benke et al. US 6,286,377 B1 Sept. 11, 2001 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Benke. Final Act. 7. B. Claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Benke in view of Eastcott. Id. at 13. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Benke. Final Act. 7. The Appellant presents separate arguments for claim 1 and for claims 7 and 17. Appeal Br. Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 4 8–21. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claims 1 and 7. Claim 17 will stand or fall with claim 7. All other claims will stand or fall with claim 1. As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Benke teaches each recitation of claim 1. Final Act. 7–10. As to claim 1’s recitation of “a comparison assembly structured . . . to compare said sensor assembly actual component characteristic output data to said selected nominal data,” the Examiner relies on several different aspects of Benke and provides substantial explanation supporting the Examiner’s position. Ans. 3–24. Most pertinent to this decision, the Examiner finds that Benke teaches determining velocity of its components and finds that Benke makes this determination by comparing positions of components at different times. Id. at 6–8. Appellant argues that Benke’s determination of velocity does not necessarily require a comparison as claim 1 recites because a speedometer could instead be utilized. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Benke does not use, for example, a speedometer to determine velocity; rather, as the Examiner finds, Benke determines velocity by comparing positions at different times. Ans. 6–8. Benke explicitly states that its microprocessor “determines the time (t); open and closed displacements (D); and actions in terms of time (t), speed (s=V=dD/dt), and acceleration (a=dV/dt).” Benke 6:44–46. A person of skill in the art would understand, in this context, that “dD/dt” refers to calculating a difference in distance and dividing by a difference in time. The calculation of a difference in distance is a mathematical comparison between distances. Appellant admits as much. Appeal Br. 13 (“Appellants agree that some methods of determining velocity/speed can utilize the comparison of position and distance.”). Although the Specification describes more complicated Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 5 calculations, the Specification similarly describes comparisons in terms of math operations. See, e.g., Spec. 20:24–23:21. To explain more specifically, Benke teaches determining position of the driven part and saving the value in memory 149. Ans. 6 (quoting Benke 6:54–59). This corresponds to claim 1’s recitation of selected nominal data. Spec. 16:4–9 (“’[S]elected nominal data,’ as used herein, are determined via use, testing or determined theoretically and is utilized as a standard template against which the acquired data is compared.”). Benke then determines additional positions. Ans. 6 (citing Benke 6:59–67). This corresponds to claim 1’s “actual component characteristic output data.” After these determinations, the microprocessor determines motion. Id. (citing Benke 7:1–7). Benke’s system determines motion by, as explained above, calculating change in position divided by change in time. Ans. 6–7; see also Benke 6:44–46. As explained above, the evaluation of change in position is a comparison. Benke ultimately transforms the operation data (such as velocity into “charts, plots, or graphs” with data pertaining to performance of the Benke circuit breaker. Id. at 7:48–55; see also Ans. 10–11 (explaining that use of charts, plots, or graphs also involves comparison); Final Act. 8 (finding that Benke teaches providing an indication signal as to whether sensor assembly output data is acceptable when compared to nominal data) (citing Benke 5:46–56, 7:34–55). We, thus, are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 7 recites: 7. The component monitoring system of Claim 2 wherein: said comparison assembly includes a modular housing assembly; Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 6 said modular housing assembly including a number of sidewalls and a selectable coupling; said modular housing assembly sidewalls defining an enclosed space; and said processing assembly disposed within said modular housing assembly enclosed space. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Benke teaches a microprocessor (143) (a comparison assembly) and that the microprocessor will have a plastic or ceramic housing as well as legs that make it modular. Ans. 24. The Examiner explains how Benke’s microprocessor and its surrounding housing (whether or not the surrounding housing is considered part of the microprocessor) meets each recitation of claim 7. Id. at 24–25. The Examiner cites non-patent literature of record to support the Examiner’s findings regarding a microprocessor’s components. Id. Appellant does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding structure that surrounds the computing portion of a microprocessor. Instead, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “housing assembly” is in error. Appeal Br. 18. Appellant, however, does not identify any portion of the Specification that defines or otherwise limits the meaning of “housing assembly” such that the structure that surrounds a microprocessor would be excluded. Indeed, Appellant does not suggest any construction of the term “housing assembly” at all. Appellant also argues that a “microprocessor” is merely an integrated circuit rather than including structure that holds that integrated circuit. Appeal Br. 18–19. This argument does not identify harmful error. Appellant does not persuasively dispute that the Examiner’s finding that the integrated circuit portion of a microprocessor is surrounded by plastic or ceramic. Whether or not this surrounding plastic or ceramic is considered part of the Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 7 “microprocessor” does not impact whether or not it may be considered a “housing assembly” within the scope of claim 7 and does not impact whether or not Benke, by teaching a microprocessor, also teaches routine structure that surrounds computing circuitry. Appellant cites In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as supporting Appellant’s position. Appeal Br. 17. Smith is distinguishable. In Smith, our reviewing court held that the Board’s construction of “body” was unreasonably broad because the specification consistently referred to “body” as a component distinct from, for example, the mandrel, piston, and drive ring. In re: Smith, 871 F.3d at 1382. Here, claim 7 explicitly states that the “comparison assembly includes a modular housing assembly.” Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). The Benke comparison assembly includes both the computing circuitry of the microprocessor as well as the plastic or ceramic packaging that surrounds the computing circuitry. Smith might be analogous if, for example, the Examiner attempted to interpret “housing assembly” as including computing circuitry, but the Examiner does not take such a position. Rather, the Examiner acknowledges that housing assembly is separate from computing circuitry and addresses Benke on that basis. Ans. 24–30.3 Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Rejection 2. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner and Appellant may wish to further consider art that places microprocessors and sensors within a larger structure for purposes of protecting the microprocessor (for example, phones, laptop computers, etc.) as demonstrating that, even if anticipation were lacking, use of a “housing assembly” would have been obvious. Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 8 § 103 as obvious over Benke in view of Eastcott. Final Act. 13. Claim 6 recites, for example, “a stress sensor module.” Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Benke or Eastcott with regard to claims 6 and 16, and Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s stated reason to combine the teachings of these references. Instead, Appellant argues that Benke and Eastcott are not analogous art. Appeal Br. 21–24. Our reviewing court has held that two separate tests define whether art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the Examiner relies only on the second of these two tests. Ans. 32 (agreeing that Eastcott is not from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).With regard to the second test, Appellant does not persuasively dispute that Eastcott’s teachings concerning a stress testing sensor are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved (for example, use of “ stress sensor module” as claim 6 recites). Appeal Br. 21–24. Instead, Appellant argues that Eastcott is not analogous because its title and abstract do not mention performance verification and because the performance verification is a “minor component” of Eastcott. Id. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not supported by law. Ans. 30–31. Appellant’s focus on the title and abstract of Eastcott improperly conflates the first analogous art test (field of endeavor) with the second (reasonably pertinent to problem with which the inventor is involved). Our reviewing court has routinely held that art that might be summarized as Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 9 being different than the invention’s field (analogous art test one) may nonetheless address problems with which the inventor is involved (test two). See, e.g., Sci. Plastic Prod., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding caps for sealing beverage containers are analogous art for claim having sealing cap for low pressure liquid chromatographic cartridge); In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that prior art regarding folding bed was analogous art to claim for folding treadmill); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding, for example, that art regarding flaps for tents could be analogous to asbestos remediation because same problem addressed); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that art relating to covers generally was analogous to claims directed to portable computer in metal case). Appellant’s argument regarding Eastcott’s verification being a “minor component” of Eastcott is also unpersuasive because we must consider the entirety of prior art references. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (“all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered”). As the Examiner explains, a person of skill in the art searching for ways to address problems relating to verification could find Eastcott’s pertinent teachings by reviewing Eastcott’s text or engaging an electronic search. Ans. 31. Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify error, we sustain this rejection. Appeal 2020-002199 Application 14/825,243 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7–12, 17–20 102 Benke 1, 2, 7–12, 17–20 6, 16 103 Benke, Eastcott 6, 16 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 6–12, 16–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation