Ex Parte Blevins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 5, 2017

11014307 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 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.
11/014,307 12/16/2004 Terrence Blevins 06005/39536 1721
4743 7590 01/09/2017
MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
6300 WILLIS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6357
EXAMINER
OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/09/2017 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):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TERRENCE BLEVINS, MARK NIXON, KEN BEOUGHTER,
MICHAEL LUCAS, and ARTHUR WEBB
Appeal 2015-004549
Application 11/014,307
Technology Center 2100
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—31, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-004549
Application 11/014,307
method within a process module of a process plant. The Examiner states
that Hafemann discloses this feature. Ans. 7—14 (citing Hafemann Figs. 5A
and 78, 24:66 — 25:19, 25:40-53, 26:26—28, and 30:58—62). Appellants
argue that Hafemann discloses “continuously obtaining data” but fails to
disclose or suggest “conditions to obtain data.” App. Br. 16. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Hafemann discloses “an automated system which controls ... an
automated assembly line” that “include[s] a plurality of sensors and
actuators” and “store[s] . . . and execute[s]” a “control program” that may
detect “the presence of an object” such that “[e]ach state change of a control
element is a discrete event that is detected by” the system. Hafemann 25:6—
9, 43—46, 51—52. In other words, as the Examiner indicates, Hafemann
discloses a system (or “process module”) that obtains data from components
of the system (or obtains “data from physical entities and physical
connection entities” of the system) and that it would have been obvious to
one of skill in the art (who is not an automaton) that a system that obtains
data from entities (as disclosed by Hafemann) would obtain the data from
the entities under conditions that allow the receipt of such data. Ans. 8—11.
Otherwise, the system would not obtain the data. This would be contrary to
the disclosure of Hafemann that explicitly discloses that the data is obtained.
Appellants also argue that Hafemann fails to disclose “obtaining data
from physical connection entities that are disposed between physical
entities.” App. Br. 17. As previously discussed, Hafemann discloses “an
automated system which controls ... an automated assembly line” that
4
Appeal 2015-004549
Application 11/014,307
3) a rules database including one or more sets of rules for
use by the process module of the process plant, the rules defining
conditions to allow the process module of the process plant to:
a) interact with the physical entities and physical
connection entities for the process module of the process plant,
b) obtain data from the physical entities and physical
connection entities for one or more methods within the process
module of the process plant, and
c) resolve an effect of other process modules of the process
plant associated with an upstream or downstream connection of
the process module of the process plant; and
display the graphic representation of the physical
connection entity along with the flow parameter data on the
display device.
REFERENCE AND REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejects claims 1—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kodosky et al. (US 7,219,306 B2, issued May 15, 2007)
(“Kodosky”), Hafemann et al. (US 6,161,051, issued December 12, 2000)
(“Hafemann”), and Henry et al. (US 6,505,519 B2, issued January 14, 2003)
(“Henry”).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—31?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites rules defining conditions to allow a process module to
obtain data from physical entities and physical connection entities for a
3
Appeal 2015-004549
Application 11/014,307
experimental data and “training” data of an estimate of a material flow
output of a physical connection. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art that a system that generates data pertaining to flow of
a physical connection would generate an “attribute” that is related to the
flow through the physical connection. Appellants do not provide a
persuasive showing of a difference between experimental data and “training”
data pertaining to material flow and an “attribute” pertaining to material
flow. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Appellants do not provide additional arguments in support of claims
2-7, 10-18, 21-25, and 27-31.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kodosky, Hafemann, and Henry.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8