Ex Parte Reid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2017

13662280 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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.
13/662,280 10/26/2012 Douglas W. Reid 2011P-106-US1
(ALBR:0469)
2308
42982 7590 08/07/2017
Rnrlcwe.11 Automation Tnr /FY
EXAMINER
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19
1201 South Second Street
PAN, YUHUI R
Milwaukee, WI 53204 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/07/2017 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 DOUGLAS W. REID, JOSEPH BRONIKOWSKI,
SUBBIAN GOVINDARAJ, TARYL JASPER, MICHAEL KALAN,
STEVEN JOHN KOWAL, KENNETH PLACHE,
DOUGLAS J. REICHARD, CHARLES RISCHAR, and
CHRISTOPHER E. STANEK1
Appeal 2017-001148
Application 13/662,280
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—23, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Rockwell Automation
Technologies, Inc. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2017-001148
Application 13/662,280
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an automation control system that
includes delta scripts describing changes of stored state information. The
delta scripts enable other components to update state information.
(Abstract.)
Claim 14 is exemplary, with certain disputed limitations in italics:
14. A method for communicating state changes of an
object of an automation control system, comprising:
detecting, at an arbiter of change component of the
automation control system, one or more requested changes of a
state of one or more objects in the automation control system-
made by an instrument of change;
updating, at the arbiter of change component of the automation
control system, a persistent object model, based upon the one or more
requested changes;
generating, via the arbiter of change, one or more delta scripts,
wherein the delta scripts comprise technology-independent data
representative of the one or more changes without unchanged object
elements;
publishing the one or more delta scripts to a distributed
automation component of the automation control system, such
that the distributed automation component may alter a
distributed copy of the persistent object model stored on the
distributed automation component in accordance with the one
or more changes, using the delta scripts.
Claims 1—9, 13—16, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kowal (US 2010/0083226 Al; published
Apr. 1, 2010), Ozzie (US 2004/0024820 Al; published Feb. 5, 2004) and
Wong (US 2002/0147849 Al; published Oct. 10, 2002).
2
Appeal 2017-001148
Application 13/662,280
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Kapoor (US 2008/0120362 Al; published
May 22, 2008).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Oulid-Aissa (US 5,687,363; issued
Nov. 11, 1997).
Claims 12 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Fritsch (US 2006/0236083 Al;
published Oct. 19, 2006).
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Podjamy
(US 2011/0314091 Al; published Dec. 22, 2011).
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Wedel (US 2005/0081105 Al; published
Apr. 14, 2005).
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Fritsch.
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Kowal, Ozzie, and Wong
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 12—14) that the
combination of Kowal, Ozzie, and Wong would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 14, which includes the limitation that “the distributed
automation component may alter a distributed copy of the persistent object
model stored on the distributed automation component in accordance with
the one or more changes, using the delta scripts.”
3
Appeal 2017-001148
Application 13/662,280
The Examiner found that state change commands of Kowal, as
illustrated in Figures 5A—G, correspond to the limitation “delta scripts.”
(Final Act. 9.) The Examiner further found that engine 426 of Ozzie
corresponds to the limitation “persistent object model” {id. at 10), and that
memory 510 of peer units 314 A—314D corresponds to the limitation “a
distributed copy of the persistent object model” (Ans. 4). Moreover, the
Examiner found that the human machine interface (“HMI”) of Kowal
corresponds to the limitation “distributed automation component.” (Final
Act. 10.)
Kowal relates to “techniques for manipulation of objects of industrial
automation devices and their visual representations on the interface
devices.” (11.) Figures 5 A—M of Kowal illustrate a change in the state of a
device element (e.g., deletion of a device element), such that a user of
browser 48 can manipulate the state of a device. (149.) Furthermore,
Figure 5E of Kowal illustrates a delete operation in which device element
representation 106 has been removed from HMI 26. (| 57.)
Ozzie relates to “a peer-to-peer collaborative system in which
collaborators communicate via a shared telespace and exchange data change
requests.” (Abstract.) Figure 4 of Ozzie illustrates ABC System 400 having
tool 424 for user interface capability and engine 426 “for maintaining and
changing the data that supports the telespace 404.” (| 76.) Ozzie explains
that “engine 426 can modify persistent model data, and emit asynchronous
data change notifications to the tool 424.” {Id.) Figure 5 of Ozzie illustrates
ABC system 500 as a distributed system, including peer units 314A—D.
(179.)
4
Appeal 2017-001148
Application 13/662,280
The Examiner cited to (i) Figures 5 A—M of Kowal for teaching the
limitation “delta scripts”; (ii) engine 426 of Ozzie for teaching the limitation
“persistent object model”; (iii) memory 510 in peer units 314A—314D for
teaching the limitation “a distributed copy of the persistent object model”;
and (iv) HMI 26 of Kowal for teaching the limitation “distributed
automation component.” Still, the Examiner has provided insufficient
evidence to support a finding that the combination of Kowal and Ozzie
teaches the limitation that “the distributed automation component may alter
a distributed copy of the persistent object model stored on the distributed
automation component in accordance with the one or more changes, using
the delta scripts.” The Supreme Court has held “a patent composed of
several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of
its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “This is so because inventions in
most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered,
and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in
some sense, is already known.” Id. at 418—19. Here, the Examiner has
identified individual elements in each reference, but has not provided an
adequate explanation as to how each of the individual cited elements (e.g.,
the HMI of Kowal and engine 425 of Ozzie) would cooperatively interrelate
to teach the limitation that “the distributed automation component may alter
a distributed copy of the persistent object model stored on the distributed
automation component in accordance with the one or more changes, using
the delta script.” In addition, Wong does not cure the above noted
deficiencies of Kowal and Ozzie.
5
Appeal 2017-001148
Application 13/662,280
Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded by Appellants’
arguments that “there is simply no disclosure or suggestion regarding
‘publishing the one or more delta scripts to a distributed automation
component of the automation control system, such that the distributed
automation component may alter a distributed copy of the persistent object
model stored on the distributed automation component in accordance with
the one or more changes, using the delta scripts’ found in the prior art.”
(App. Br. 14.)
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 15 and 16 depend from independent
claim 14. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 14.
Independent claims 1 and 20 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 14. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 20, as well as dependent claims 2—9, 13, 15, 16,
and 21, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 14.
§103 Rejection—Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Kapoor
Claim 10 depends from independent claim 1. Kapoor was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 10. (Final Act. 15—
16.) However, the Examiner’s application of Kapoor does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Kowal, Ozzie, and Wong.
§103 Rejection—Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Oulid-Aissa
Claim 11 depends from independent claim 1. Oulid-Aissa was cited
by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 11. (Final
6
Appeal 2017-001148
Application 13/662,280
Act. 16—17.) However, the Examiner’s application of Oulid-Aissa does not
cure the above noted deficiencies of Kowal, Ozzie, and Wong.
§103 Rejection—Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Frits eh
Claims 12 and 17 depend from independent claims 1 and 14. Fritsch
was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 12
and 17. (Final Act. 17—19.) However, the Examiner’s application of Fritsch
does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Kowal, Ozzie, and Wong.
§103 Rejection—Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Podjarny
Claims 18 and 19 depend from independent claim 14. Podjarny was
cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 18 and
19. (Final Act. 19—21.) However, the Examiner’s application of Podjarny
does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Kowal, Ozzie, and Wong.
§103 Rejection—Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Wedel
Claim 22 depends from independent claim 20. Wedel was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 22. (Final
Act. 21—22.) However, the Examiner’s application of Wedel does not cure
the above noted deficiencies of Kowal, Ozzie, and Wong.
§103 Rejection—Kowal, Ozzie, Wong, and Fritsch
Claim 23 depends from independent claim 20. Fritsch was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 23. (Final
Act. 22—23.) However, the Examiner’s application of Fritsch does not cure
the above noted deficiencies of Kowal, Ozzie, and Wong.
7
Appeal 2017-001148
Application 13/662,280
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—23 is reversed.
REVERSED
8