Ex Parte Wernersbach et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201814674528 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation