Ex Parte D et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2016

13285533 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

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. 13/285,533 10/31/2011 Paul R. D'Mura 09AB168-US(ALBR:0456/POW) 7087 42982 7590 11/02/2016 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19 1201 South Second Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 EXAMINER STEVENS, THOMAS H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2126 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2016 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): howell@fyiplaw.com docket@fyiplaw.com raintellectu alproperty @ ra.rockwell .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL R. D’MURA, KENNETH S. PLACHE, MICHAEL D. KALAN, KENWOOD H. HALL, and SUJEET CHAND Appeal 2015-008228 Application 13/285,533 Technology Center 2100 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—23, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-008228 Application 13/285,533 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for process control including process-initiated workflow. Abstract. “In particular, the memory circuitry may include various modules that include instructions for executing a procedure, executing one or more supplemental procedures, and storing data associated with the procedures and supplemental procedures in a production record.” Spec. 116. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A process controller, comprising: memory circuitry, comprising: a procedure module comprising instructions for executing a procedure, a plurality of supplemental procedure modules, each of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules comprising instructions for executing one of a plurality of supplemental procedures, and a production record configured to store data generated from an execution of the procedure module and one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules; and processing circuitry, comprising: a process monitor processor configured to receive an input electronic signal indicative of a status of a process feature, apply logic based on the input electronic signal, and generate an output electronic signal in response to the input electronic signal, and a sequence engine processor configured to execute the procedure module, receive the output electronic signal, apply logic based on the output electronic signal, select one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules based on the received output electronic signal, execute the selected one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules, and update the 2 Appeal 2015-008228 Application 13/285,533 production record with data generated from the execution of the procedure module and the selected one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Weatherhead US 2008/0095196 A1 Apr. 24, 2008 Lauer US 7,765,549 B1 July 27,2010 ABB’s, Industrial System 800xA Production Management Batch Management Overview (2006) (hereinafter “ABB”) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17—20, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Weatherhead. Final Act. 2—17. Claims 2 and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weatherhead in view of Lauer. Final Act. 18—20. Claims 5, 8, 10, 13,21, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weatherhead in view of ABB. Final Act. 20—25. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1—23. 3 Appeal 2015-008228 Application 13/285,533 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Weatherhead discloses “a sequence engine processor configured to execute the procedure module, . . ., select one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules . . ., [and] execute the selected one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9—12; Reply Br. 2—3. More specifically, according to Appellants, the Examiner maps Weatherhead communicator 402 to the sequence engine module. App. Br. 10—11. However, Appellants argue communicator 402 does not select any supplemental procedures, let alone execute them as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds Weatherhead communicator 402 discloses the claimed sequence generator that “controls various modules.” Final Act. 4 (citing Weatherhead || 24, 43) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds communicator 402 selects and then executes “one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing Weatherhead H 24, 43). During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, 4 Appeal 2015-008228 Application 13/285,533 limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “[Although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments. . . . [C]laims may embrace ‘different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification.’” Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc) (citations omitted). In this case, the Specification states that “supplemental procedures or workflows are process-initiated in that changes in the process result in generation of supplemental workflows.” Spec. 116. The Specification further states the supplemental procedures are executed “when certain conditions, such as process changes, trigger actions to be performed.” Spec. 120. As an example, supplemental procedures are executed to “handle the occurrences of exceptions, or special conditions that change the normal flow of program execution.” Spec. 121. Claim 1 recites various limitations that define supplemental procedures. A supplemental procedure module “comprises instructions for executing. . . supplemental procedures.” App. Br. 23. The sequence engine processor is “configured to . . . receive the output electronic signal” from the process monitor processor and, “select one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules based on the received output electronic signal.” Id. The process monitor processor is configured to “generate an output electronic signal in response to” “an input electronic signal indicative of a status of a process feature.” Id. 5 Appeal 2015-008228 Application 13/285,533 We have reviewed the sections of Weatherhead cited by the Examiner and considered the Examiner’s reasoning. However, because Weatherhead’s resource control modules pointed to by the Examiner do not appear, on their face, to be supplemental, we conclude that the Examiner’s finding that Weatherhead discloses supplemental procedures and “a sequence engine processor configured to . . . select one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules based on the received output electronic signal [and] execute the selected one or more of the plurality of supplemental procedure modules” is not supported by the record. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 15 and 20, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitations discussed above, and dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17—19, and 23. With respect to dependent claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 21, and 22, Appellants contend that because the additional references used in the rejections of these claims (Lauer and ABB) do not cure the shortcomings of Weatherhead as applied against claims 1, 15, or 20, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 18—21. Because the Examiner does not rely on Lauer or ABB to cure the shortcoming discussed above for claim 1 (see Ans. 7—8), we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 21, and 22. 6 Appeal 2015-008228 Application 13/285,533 DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17—20, and 23 as anticipated. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting the subject matter of claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 21, and 22 as obvious. REVERSED 7