Ex Parte Plache et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

13654061 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 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.
13/654,061 10/17/2012 Kenneth S. Plache 2010P183-US1 1096
(ALBR:0472)
42982 7590 06/14/2017
Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19
1201 South Second Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
MIAN, MUHAMMAD U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
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 KENNETH S. PLACHE, MICHAEL D. KALAN,
KEITH M. HOGAN, and CHRISTOPHER E. STANEK
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,0611
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—26. 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. 2.
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An automation control and monitoring system,
comprising:
an automation control component configured to store
measurement data acquired from a sensing component of the
automation control system in onboard memory in a manner
defined by a data structure of the measurement data;
a data store configured to store and dynamically associate
meta-data with the measurement data acquired from the sensing
component such that the meta-data extends the data structure by
linking at least portions of the meta-data with the measurement
data, resulting in an extended data structure comprising both the
measurement data and the meta-data; and
at least one secondary automation control component
configured to access the extended data structure to use the
measurement data, the meta-data, or both.
Meyer et al
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2001/0031066 Al Oct. 18, 2001
Razdan US 2002/0168082 Al Nov. 14, 2002
Laborde et al. US 2003/0105811 Al June 5, 2003
Blumenau et al. US 2007/0113287 Al May 17, 2007
McGreevy et al. US 2007/0142941 Al June 21, 2007
Bliss et al. US 2008/0183976 Al July 31, 2008
Brodsky et al US 2008/0288547 Al Nov. 20, 2008
Gordon et al. US 2010/0153771 Al June 17, 2010
Ireland US 2011/0153836 Al June 23, 2011
Brunswig et al. US 2011/0161942 Al June 30, 2011
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner’s rejections
2
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Laborde and
Meyer. Final Act. 5—12.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Laborde, Meyer, and Brodsky. Final
Act. 12-13.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Laborde, Meyer, and Ireland. Final
Act. 13-14.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Laborde, Meyer, and Brunswig. Final
Act. 14-15.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Laborde, Meyer, and Blumenau. Final
Act. 16-18.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Laborde, Meyer, and Razdan. Final
Act. 18-19.
Claims 19—23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Bliss and Gordon. Final Act.
20-24.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bliss, Gordon, and McGreevy. Final
Act. 24-25.
3
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—19, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—5.2
Appellants first contend the proposed combination of Laborde and
Meyer does not teach or suggest “storing meta-data relating to the tag via a
computer in a location separate from the data structure of the tag, wherein
the tag does not comprise the meta-data, resulting in an extended data
structure comprising both the data and the meta-data that may be accessed
via a secondary component of the automation control and monitoring system
to use the data, the meta-data, or both,” as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 10-
11; Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants assert Meyer teaches meta-data as
descriptive data associated with music content. App. Br. 10 (citing Meyer |
14). According to Appellants, the meta-data of Meyer does not “extend a
rigid/defined data structure.” App. Br. 10 (citing Meyer 114). Appellants
further assert that the dynamic linking of meta-data with data in Meyer does
not teach extending a data structure. App. Br. 10 (citing Meyer | 67), 11
(citing Meyer 112). Additionally, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 23, 2016) (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed November 16, 2016) (“Reply Br.”), the Answer (mailed September 1,
2016) (“Ans.”), the Final Office Action (mailed November 25, 2015) (“Final
Act.”), and the original Specification (filed October 17, 2012) for the
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).
4
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
characterization of MP3 as a data structure. Reply Br. 2. According to
Appellants, MP3 is a file name extension. Reply Br. 2.
These arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds Meyer
teaches extending the data structure of the audio data by increasing the
meaning and application of the data structure. Ans. 3^4. According to the
Examiner, the metadata of Meyer is linked to the audio data to provide
information related to the audio data, such as the artist, the rights holder,
purchasing and licensing opportunities, and monitoring capabilities. Ans. 3
(citing Meyer 115). We agree with the Examiner that metadata linked to the
MP3 data structure extends the MP3 data structure because the data structure
can access additional information and has increased capabilities. Ans. 4.
The Examiner additionally finds Meyer teaches another capability of the
extended MP3 data structure of having the data remain fixed, but enabling
the associated metadata to change. Ans. 4 (citing Meyer | 67). Contrary to
Appellants’ argument, the MP3 file, not the MP3 file name extension,
corresponds to a defined data structure. Ans. 3; Reply Br. 2.
Additionally, we note Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply
Brief, that Meyer suggests the media is separate from the metadata. Reply
Br. 3^4 (citing Meyer 122, Fig. 1). Because Appellants’ belated arguments
presented in the Reply Brief are not in response to new evidence or
arguments proffered by the Examiner in the Answer, those arguments are
waived absent a showing of good cause for their late consideration. 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). In particular, we find no justification on this record as
to why Appellants could not have raised earlier the arguments that the cited
arguments. We have held that new arguments in the Reply Brief are
inappropriate and will not be considered. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
5
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal
brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1. Regarding claims 2—18, because Appellants reiterate substantially the
same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1
above (App. Br. 7, 12—15, 19), claims 2—18, fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Second, Appellants argue the proposed combination of Bliss and
Gordon does not teach or suggest “storing meta-data relating to the tag via a
computer in a location separate from the data structure of the tag, wherein
the tag does not comprise the meta-data, resulting in an extended data
structure comprising both the data and the meta-data that may be accessed
via a secondary component of the automation control and monitoring system
to use the data, the meta-data, or both,” as recited in independent claim 19.
App. Br. 15—19; Reply Br. 4—5. In particular, Appellants assert Appellants’
Specification describes that the tag database has meta-data to extend the
measurement data structure without having the meta-data part of the
measurement data structure. App. Br. 17 (citing Spec. ]f 69). According to
Appellants, although Gordon teaches a particular data structure, Gordon
does not teach extending this data structure. App. Br. 17—18. Appellants
contend Gordon teaches metadata controls the exchange of information.
App. Br. 18 (citing Gordon]] 112).
These arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds Gordon
teaches metadata increasing the functionality of data structures beyond the
functionality the data structures have by themselves. Ans. 5. The Examiner
6
Appeal 2017-001323
Application 13/654,061
explains Gordon teaches metadata adds the function of the control of data
exchange to data structures. Ans. 5 (citing Gordon 1112); see Gordon 1112
(“[T]he metadata can identify resources that are allowed to [be] delivered
and received through peer-to-peer exchange.”). We agree with the Examiner
that the metadata increases the application of the data structure by specifying
resources that can be exchanged peer-to-peer to extend the data structure.
Ans. 6. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19.
Regarding claims 20—26, because Appellants reiterate substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim
1 above (App. Br. 15, 19), claims 20-26, fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1—26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7