Ex Parte Daily et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 11, 2017

13671331 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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. 13/671,331 11/07/2012 Gordon Daily 11AB097-US-A 1095 70640 7590 01/13/2017 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC / SR Attn: Linda Kasulke 1201 S. 2nd Street E-7C19 Milwaukee, WI 53204 EXAMINER RIAD, AMINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2113 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2017 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): s arah @ setterroche. com u spto @ setterroche .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 GORDON DAILY, JOHN McCAULEY, MELISSA MACK, KEVIN SMITH, MATTHEW ERICSSON, and MATTHEW DELISLE Appeal 2016-002828 Application 13/671,3311 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-002828 Application 13/671,331 Appellants ’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for graphically displaying detected error conditions pertaining to the machine operations within an industrial automation environment. Spec, 20—23, Fig. 5. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored thereon program instructions to facilitate the display of multiple errors, wherein the program instructions, when executed by a computing system, direct the computing system to at least: initiate display of a graphical view of an industrial automation environment; detect a plurality of error conditions related to machine operations within the industrial automation environment; determine a plurality of locations within the graphical view associated with the plurality of error conditions; identity at least one group of error conditions from the plurality of error conditions based on the plurality of locations; and initiate display of a graphical representation of the at least one group of the error conditions. Prior Art Relied Upon Windl US 7,290,182 B2 Oct. 30, 2007 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Windl. 2 Appeal 2016-002828 Application 13/671,331 ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7—11, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—3.2 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as otherwise indicated hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 3—5. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that Windl does not describe the identification of a group of detected error conditions. App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants argue that Windl discloses a diagnostic viewport containing a physical depiction of an automation device in context, and well as fault identifications. App. Br. 9 (citing Windl 3:35— 42). However, Appellants argue that the disclosed fault identifications do not describe grouping “faults together.” Id. This argument is not persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, the claim does not require grouping the errors together, in contrast with Appellants’ argument. See Ans. 5. Instead, the claim requires identifying a group of errors, which need 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 30, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed December 24, 2015), and the Answer (mailed October 22, 2015) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 3 Appeal 2016-002828 Application 13/671,331 not necessarily be contiguously listed. Ans. 5. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Further, even though Windl’s depiction of the automation device only displays a single identified fault, Windl nonetheless describes identifying a plurality of faults, as acknowledged by Appellants. Windl 3:35 42. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that, upon updating the disclosed viewports to reflect the identified plurality of faults, the viewports will, without a doubt, display the identified faults. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Windl describes identifying a group of detected errors. Ans. 5. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2—20, because Appellants only reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2—20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. 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 4