Ex Parte Kamenetz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 2016

13239791 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/239,791 09/22/2011 26096 7590 10/31/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeffry K. Kamenetz 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 67036-694 PUSl;PA-0019005 7083 EXAMINER KARIM, ZIAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2016 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFRY K. KAMENETZ, MARK A. JOHNSTON, EDWARD JOHN MAROTTA, CATHLEEN R. BLEIER, and JOHN M. O'NEIL Appeal2015-007345 Application 13/239,791 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-007345 Application 13/239,791 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 10-17, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application "relates to electrical controllers, and more particularly to an electronic control architecture integrating multiple control channels." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method of electronically controlling a device comprising: controlling a device using a first primary control micropro- cessor under normal conditions; controlling said device using a second primary control micro- processor when said first primary control microprocessor is un- healthy and said second primary control microprocessor is healthy; controlling said device using a first secondary control micro- processor or a second secondary control microprocessor when said first primary control microprocessor and said second pri- mary control microprocessor are unhealthy; each of said first primary control microprocessor, said second primary control microprocessor, said first secondary control mi- croprocessor, and said second secondary control microproces- sors that is not controlling said device accepting a channel in- control signal from one of said first primary control micropro- cessor, said second primary control microprocessor, said first secondary control microprocessor, and said second secondary 1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 1.) 2 Appeal2015-007345 Application 13/239,791 control microprocessor wherein the microprocessor originating the channel in-control signal is controlling said device; and wherein said channel in-control signal prohibits each of said first primary control microprocessor, said second primary con- trol microprocessor, said first secondary control microprocessor, and said second secondary control microprocessors that is not controlling said device from asserting control. THE REJECTION2 Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Takats et al. (US 5,274,554; issued Dec. 28, 1993). (See Final Act. 4--12.) ANALYSIS Appellants argue Takats does not describe "wherein said channel in- control signal prohibits each of [the processors] that is not controlling said device from asserting control," as recited in claim 1, or "wherein said control input is operable to prevent each of [the processors] from asserting control over said device when said signal received at said control input is a positive voltage," as recited in claim 7. The Examiner finds this limitation met because Taka[t]s col. 6 line 45 - col. 8 line 67 and col. 8 lines 4 - 13 describes that it is [a] redundant system and the redundant CPUs only assert control, once the primary CPU is unhealthy. Redundancy is the duplication of critical components or functions or systems to increase reliability. Which means when 2 The Examiner has objected to the Abstract and claims 1 and 9. (See Final Act. 3.) The objections are not a subject of this appeal. 3 Appeal2015-007345 Application 13/239,791 one is running other one is prohibited to run, if the running component or system fails then other one start running. (Ans. 11.) We agree with Appellants that Takats' redundant system does not include control signals that prohibit processors that are not controlling the device from asserting control, as claimed. Instead, Takats teaches a system in which channels that are not in control may monitor the controlling channel in order to deactivate it in the event it fails but does not recognize its own fault status. (See Takats 8:4--13.) The reference simply does not describe a control signal originated by the controlling processor that "prohibits each of [the processors] that is not controlling said device from asserting control" as recited in claim 1 or analogously in claim 7. Because the Examiner has not shown that Takats "disclose[ s] each and every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently," Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldfine Pharm., Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006), we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) rejection. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 10-1 7 is reversed. REVERSED 4