Ex Parte Abe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2014

10650236 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

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. 10/650,236 08/28/2003 Tatsutoshi Abe 393032040300 6413 7590 03/27/2014 David L. Fehrman Morrison & Foerster LLP 35th Floor 555 W. 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2014 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 TATSUTOSHI ABE and JUNICHI FUJIMORI ____________ Appeal 2011-010292 Application 10/650,236 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010292 Application 10/650,236 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Tatsutoshi Abe, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM.1 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Claim 1: A command synchronization establishment system comprising: a network wherein a cycle master node managing time on the network periodically transmits a cycle start packet including time information to each node connected to the network, each node synchronizes its clock in accordance with the time information included in the cycle start packet so as to assure isochronism on the network by sharing the synchronized clock with each other node, data is periodically transferred by an isochronous transfer following the cycle start packet, and a command is transferred by an asynchronous transfer using a time period after the isochronous transfer until the next cycle start packet; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 12, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 4, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Feb. 3, 2011). Appeal 2011-010292 Application 10/650,236 3 a controller as a node connected to the network, comprising a transmitter that transmits a command including a time-stamp based on the synchronized clock to a target apparatus by using the asynchronous transfer; and the target apparatus as another node connected to the network, comprising a receiver that receives the command, a storage device that temporally stores the received command in order not to execute the received command instantly, a transmitter that transmits an interim response to the controller reflecting that the received command will be executed when a current time based on the synchronized clock reaches a time represented by the time-stamp included in the command, an executing device that executes the received command when the current time based on the synchronized clock reaches the time represented by the time-stamp included in the command, and a replying device that provides a complete response indicating completion of executing the command. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Fujimori Nakai US 6,148,051 US 2002/0064185 A1 Nov. 14, 2000 May 30, 2002 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujimori and Nakai. Appeal 2011-010292 Application 10/650,236 4 ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fujimori and Nakai? FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Examiner takes the position that Fujimori discloses [a] command synchronization establishment system comprising: a network wherein a cycle master node managing time on the network periodically transmits a cycle start packet including time information to each node connected to the network, each node synchronizes its clock in accordance with the time information included in the cycle start packet so as to assure isochronism on the network by sharing the synchronized clock with each other node (claim 1). Ans. 3-4. Nakai is relied upon as prior art against the remaining elements of the claimed system. Ans. 5-6. According to the Examiner, “it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the networking art to modify or incorporate Nakai’s teachings of waiting until the time stamp time before executing an action with the teachings of Fujimori, to provide for a more efficiency in synchronizing systems.” Ans. 6. The Appellants argue that neither Fujimori (see App. Br. 4) nor Nakai (see App. Br. 4) discloses “the two-response limitation in claim 1.” Appeal 2011-010292 Application 10/650,236 5 The argued-over two-response limitation is set forth in claim 1 with respect to the target apparatus element of the claimed system and, more specifically, with respect to a transmitter and a reply device of that target apparatus: a transmitter that transmits an interim response to the controller reflecting that the received command will be executed when a current time based on the synchronized clock reaches a time represented by the time-stamp included in the command, ..., and a replying device that provides a complete response indicating completion of executing the command. Claim 1; emphasis added. This is illustrated in Figure 3B of the Specification, which shows an “INTERIM RESPONSE” (reference element 311) from a “TARGET” to a “CONTROLLER” and a “COMPLETE RESPONSE” (reference element 313) from said “TARGET” to said “CONTROLLER.” Since the Examiner relied on Nakai as prior art against the two- response limitation, we will focus on Nakai in determining whether the Examiner’s position that Nakai discloses said two-response limitation is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In that regard the Examiner pointed, in part, to Figures 18 and 24 and associated disclosure at [0152] and [0153] of Nakai. Ans. 6. Of particular interest is the disclosure at [0152]. We reproduce it below: [0152] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing an outline of a synchronizing system using the time stamp. In FIG. 18, when synchronizing by the request node N1 and response node N2, for example, when controlling synchronously by the controller and each servo driver, it is required to synchronize at a certain time, that is, synchronous control is necessary, but in such a case, together with the command content (control content), the Appeal 2011-010292 Application 10/650,236 6 time for executing this command content (control content) is sent as the time stamp from the request node N1 to the response node N2. When the request node N1 is the controller and the response node N2 is the servo driver, the time stamp is sent from the controller to each servo driver. The response node N2 executes the received command content (control content) when reaching the received time, that is, the time of the time stamp (time stamp value) t2O.(Emphasis added). The Examiner equates the actions associated with Nakai’s request node N1 to the claimed “interim response” and the actions associated with Nakai’s response node N2 to the claimed “complete response.” Ans. 5-6 and 8-9. The Appellants argue that “[t]here is no disclosure of transmitting the complete response.” App. Br. 5. The Appellants concede that in Figure 24 Nakai discloses acknowledge packets but “[t]he acknowledge packet is also different from the recited complete response because it does not indicate completion of executing the command.” App. Br. 5. We are not persuaded by the argument. [0152] specifically states that “[t]he response node N2 executes the received command content (control content) when reaching the received time, that is, the time of the time stamp (time stamp value) t2O.” Emphasis added. Also, Nakai discloses, with respect to Figure 20, that “at the response node N2 side, when reaching the time indicated by the received time stamp value t22, the received control content is executed.” [163]. One of ordinary skill in the art would infer from executing the control content that a complete response has been transmitted. Cf. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In evaluating a references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference but also inferences which one skilled in the art would Appeal 2011-010292 Application 10/650,236 7 reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.) The Appellants further argue that contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, the “read response” in Figures 2 and 5 of Nakai does not teach or suggest the recited complete response. But we do not see that the Examiner equated the “read response” in Figures 2 and 5 of Nakai to the claimed “complete response.” Rather, the Examiner had relied on Figures 2 and 5 to show “a transmitter that transmits a command including a time-stamp based on the synchronized clock to a target apparatus by using the asynchronous transfer” (claim 1, see Ans. 5). Nevertheless, we understand Nakai’s ReadResponse packet as something the request node (N1) receives. See e.g., [0033] (emphasis added): the cycle timer delay measuring unit transmits a Read packet from a request node [N1] to a response node [N2], reads the cycle timer value of the response node, and when the request node receives a ReadResponse packet including this cycle timer value being read, calculates the delay deviation amount on the basis of the difference between the received cycle timer value and the cycle timer value of the request node. Consistent therewith, it would be more accurate to equate the claimed “interim response” to Nakai’s ReadResponse rather than the claimed “complete response” as the Appellants have argued. Finally, the “Applicants wish to stress the point that the response node in Nakai transmits only one response, as opposed to two separate responses in the present invention.” App. Br. 5. This argument is unpersuasive as to error in the rejection. First, the argument appears to be inconsistent with the Appellants’ prior argument that Nakai’s N2 response node transmits no response. Second, the Examiner did not take position that Nakai discloses Appeal 2011-010292 Application 10/650,236 8 the N2 response node as transmitting two separate responses. Rather, the Examiner reasonably broadly construed the claimed “interim response” as covering the actions associated with Nakai’s N1 request node, not the N2 response node. For the foregoing reasons, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position that Nakai discloses said two-response limitation. The Appellants’ arguments have been reviewed but found unpersuasive as to error in the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claim 2 and 4-10 Albeit each of these claims are given separate headings in the Appeal Brief, the arguments challenging their rejection repeat the arguments challenging the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons discussed in finding them unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 1, we find them unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 2 and 4-10. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 4-10 is affirmed. AFFIRMED tkl