Ex Parte Wernersbach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

14674528 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/674,528 03/31/2015
42982 7590 09/19/2018
Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7Fl 9
1201 South Second Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Glen C. Wernersbach
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.
2014P-103-US2_ALBR:0592-l 6244
EXAMINER
COLLINS, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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
raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLEN C. WERNERSBACH and KEITH G. JACOBS
Appeal2018-001524 1
Application 14/674,5282
Technology Center 3600
Before KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed June 5, 2017)
and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 28, 2017), and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 28, 2017) and Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Oct. 4, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Rockwell Automation,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001524
Application 14/674,528
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention is directed to
control architecture and, more particularly, to control architecture for use
with transport systems for moving articles from one location to another
location." Spec. ,r 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A system comprising:
a plurality of linear motor track sections interconnected to
form a continuous track, each linear motor track section
comprising a respective linear motor drive circuit;
a plurality of linear motor movers disposed on and
movable along the continuous track; and
central control circuitry coupled to the linear motor track
sections and configured to receive a motion profile for each
linear motor mover as an independent control axis, and to select
and apply control signals to selected linear motor drive circuits
to control movement of each linear motor mover as an
independent control axis along the continuous track.
Appeal Br. 10.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Jacobs. 3
3 Jacobs, US 2003/0230941 Al, pub. Dec. 18, 2003.
2
Appeal2018-001524
Application 14/674,528
DISCUSSION
As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that
the Examiner has not established that Jacobs discloses central control
circuitry configured as claimed.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Jacobs discloses a
system as claimed, and in relevant part, the Examiner finds that Jacobs
discloses motor drive circuits as elements 60, 110, and 410 and central
control circuitry as elements 90, 450, 460, 470, and 480 that collectively are
configured to perform the functions claimed. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Jacobs
Figs. 24, 25;
,r,r 93, 103). Additionally, in response to Appellants' arguments, the
Examiner indicates that "central control circuitry" is interpreted to mean "all
the electronic communication paths connected to a central control hub."
Ans. 5.
Even if we were to agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the
phrase "central control circuitry" generally, the claim also requires that such
central control circuitry is "configured ... to select and apply control signals
to selected linear motor drive circuits to control movement .... " Thus, we
find that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim to require
not only circuitry connected to a central control hub, but also to require that
the central control hub, is itself, configured to function as claimed. In
particular, the central control hub must be configured to select and apply
control signals as claimed. This understanding is consistent with the
Specification, which discloses only a central control architecture that applies
control signals via gateway drive software to select particular transport
elements. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 47.
3
Appeal2018-001524
Application 14/674,528
In light of this interpretation of the claim, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not identified any element or elements in Jacobs that
provide such central control.
Jacobs discloses a system wherein each track section has a module
controller 90 that is connected to other module controllers via a network
450. See Jacobs Fig. 25. Jacobs discloses a motion generator 480 that is
part of a servocontrol system, which may be programmed to respond to
external events and provide changes to the motion profile for a mover 40.
See Jacobs ,r,r 95, 96; Fig. 24. Notably, Jacobs does not appear to disclose
whether the motion generators or servocontrol systems are located centrally
or provided individually for each section of the track. Further, Jacobs also
discloses that a system controller 460 may be connected to the module
controllers via network 470. Id. at Fig. 25; ,r 93. However, Jacobs does not
appear to describe the structure or functionality of the system controller 460.
Finally, to the extent Jacobs describes controlling motion at each track
section, Jacobs only appears to expressly describe motion control that is
provided in a distributed fashion by the individual module controllers 90.
See, e.g. Jacobs ,r,r 98, 99.
Given the gaps in Jacobs' disclosure, and in particular, the lack of
description regarding the structure and function of system controller 460, we
cannot agree with the Examiner that Jacobs necessary includes central
control circuitry configured as required by the claim. This conclusion is
further supported by the Examiner's own findings. For example, the
Examiner finds that "system controller ( 460) could send a single signal to a
first control module (90) which would in tum provide the hand-shake signal
4
Appeal2018-001524
Application 14/674,528
to the next control module (90, 480) and so on." Ans. 8. However, the
claim requires more than central control circuitry that is capable of
performing the claimed function. Rather, the circuitry must be configured to
perform such function. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchan Eyewear, Inc.,
672 F.3d. 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that claim language
"configured to" is construed more narrowly than "capable of' and holding
that where claim language including the phrase "adapted to" is to be
construed consisted with "configured to" language it requires that the
structure must be "designed or configured to accomplish the specified
objective, not simply that [it] can be made to serve that purpose.") Thus,
without further details in Jacobs or explanation from the Examiner, we
cannot conclude that Jacobs' circuitry is necessarily configured as claimed,
which is required to show that Jacobs anticipates the claims. See In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency, however, may
not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a
certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient."
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Jacobs. For the same reasons, we are
persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of the remaining claims 2-20,
which require, or depend from a claim requiring similarly configured control
circuitry.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
5