Pankajv.Kalore

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 20, 2020

13716470 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020)

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.
13/716,470 12/17/2012 Pankaj V. Kalore 2008P10185US02 2438
28524 7590 03/20/2020
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
SHAIKH, MERAJ A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2020 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PANKAJ V. KALORE

Appeal 2018-003207
Application 13/716,470
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Siemens
Industry, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-003207
Application 13/716,470

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to actuators, and more
specifically, actuators for use in building control systems.” Spec. 1.2
Apparatus claims 1 and 9, and method claim 14, are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. An actuator comprising:
a) at least one drive arrangement configured to
generate output mechanical power from input electrical power;
b) a communication line port configured to connect to
a single external communication line and to obtain electrical
power from the communication line; and
c) a processing device configured by programming
instructions to obtain a first information from the single external
communication line via the communication line port, and
adjust an operation of the at least one drive
arrangement based on the first information and based upon
information identifying electrical power available for use as
input electrical power from at least the single external
communication line.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Park et al. (“Park”) US 2002/0159400 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Mullin US 2007/0152613 A1 July 5, 2007
Finkam et al. (“Finkam”) US 2007/0205297 A1 Sept. 6, 2007
Beisheim et al.
(“Beisheim”)
US 2007/0209653 A1 Sept. 13, 2007
Caliendo et al.
(“Caliendo”)
US 2008/0051024 A1 Feb. 28, 2008
Coulter et al. (“Coulter”) EP 0 695 918 A1 Feb. 7, 1996

2 Appellant’s Specification lacks both paragraph and line numbering. We
thus reference Appellant’s Specification via page number only.
Appeal 2018-003207
Application 13/716,470

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Coulter, Park, and Beisheim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Coulter, Park, Beisheim, and Caliendo.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Coulter, Park, Beisheim, and Mullin.
Claims 14–16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Coulter, Park, Finkam, and Beisheim.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Coulter, Park, Finkam, Beisheim, and Caliendo.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13
as unpatentable over Coulter, Park, and Beisheim
Appellant argues claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13 (i.e., all the claims)
together. See Appeal Br. 7–10. We select claim 1 for review, with the
remaining claims (i.e., claims 2–4, 6–11, and 13) standing or falling with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner primarily relies on Coulter for disclosing the
limitations of claim 1, but acknowledges that Coulter “does not explicitly
teach” that “first information is obtained from the communication line” and
that “the communication line port [is also] configured to obtain electrical
power from the single external communication line.” Final Act. 3. The
Examiner relies on Park for disclosing a “single external communication line
(Ethernet cable 30 used to transmit data signals and reference voltages,
paragraph 4).” Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner further relies on
Appeal 2018-003207
Application 13/716,470

4
Beisheim for disclosing receipt of the recited first information. See Final
Act. 3. The Examiner also provides reasons for combining each of Park and
Beisheim with Coulter. See Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s assessment of these
references and reproduces, in its entirety, Paragraph 4 of Park, which was
relied upon by the Examiner, stating “nothing in the cited portions of Park,
namely paragraph 4 . . . , discloses information and electrical power obtained
from a single external line . . . .” See Appeal Br. 8–9, Final Act. 3. We
likewise replicate the entirety of Paragraph 4 of Park below.
[0004] The typical Ethernet system comprises at least one LAN
card 10 embodied in, e.g., a personal computer (PC), and a
switching hub 20, which are connected to each other through an
unshielded twisted pair (UTP) cable 30 consisting of 4 or 8 signal
lines. For instance, among the 8 signal lines, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and
6th signal lines are used as output lines TX+ and TX- and input
lines RX+ and RX-, respectively, to transmit or receive Ethernet
data and the remaining 4 signal lines are used as reference
voltage levels of the input and output lines.
Appellant’s Specification also describes use of a similar Ethernet
cable to that described by Park above when describing its “communication
line.” Spec. 7 (“The communication line 326 may suitably be an Ethernet
cable” and that “[a] common Ethernet cable configuration includes eight
conductors” of which four are used for communication and four are used to
carry power); see also id. at 6 (“communication line 20 may suitably be any
of IP/Ethernet/RS-485/RS-222/RS-232/Optic Fiber/Power Line”); see also
Ans. 4 (where the Examiner addresses these passages in Appellant’s
Specification).
Further, Appellant’s claim 1 is silent regarding the magnitude of the
power to be received via this communication line. Instead, claim 1 simply
Appeal 2018-003207
Application 13/716,470

5
recites a port configured “to obtain electrical power from the communication
line” and also a processing device “identifying electrical power available for
use as input electrical power” from this communication line. This silence
regarding the magnitude of power to be transmitted via this communication
line is consistent with Appellant’s Specification which states, “the
instantaneous power received from the communication line 20 may be
typically insufficient to power the actuator 26.” Spec. 6. Thus, Appellant’s
Specification contemplates a communication line whose instantaneous
power is less than that required “to power the actuator 26.” Spec. 6. Indeed,
Appellant’s Specification describes the use of an energy management unit
28 to accumulate energy from the communication line 20 in energy storage
devices to provide power to actuator 26 on a periodic basis to supplement
the power in communication line 20. Spec. 6. These features are not recited
in claim 1, however. Paragraph 4 of Park (like claim 1) is also silent as to
the magnitude of power provided through this line, only discussing
“reference voltage levels” (along with data) being conveyed through Park’s
communication line 30.
Upon replicating Paragraph 4 of Park above, Appellant emphasizes
that the claimed communication port [is] configured to obtain first
information and electrical power from a single external communication
line.” Appeal Br. 9; see also id. at 10. Appellant does not explain how
Park’s similar, and single, Ethernet cable 30 is unable to accomplish this
task as discussed above with respect to Paragraph 4 of Park. See Ans. 4–5.
Appellant further contends, “[n]owhere the word ‘power’ is utilized in
the disclosure of Park.” Reply Br. 2. This distinction is not persuasive since
Park discusses the transmission of a “voltage” (Park ¶ 4), and Appellant
Appeal 2018-003207
Application 13/716,470

6
does not elaborate as to how such a discussion would fail to at least suggest
to one skilled in the art the transmission of some degree of electrical power
as well, particularly in view of the understanding in the art that a common
Ethernet cable configuration (like Park’s) includes four conductors used for
communication and four conductors used to carry power. See Spec. 7.
Appellant also contends that Park’s Ethernet cable, being an
unshielded twisted pair (UTP) cable, “is not the type of cable[] the artisan
would use to pass electric power along with data on an Ethernet
implementation.” Reply Br. 2. This argument by Appellant is not
persuasive because claim 1 merely refers to a “communication line” (and not
any particular type thereof). As such, Appellant fails to be persuasive that
Park’s Ethernet cable is not a “communication line” consistent with how this
term is employed in Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. 6, 7.
Appellant further argues that “Coulter clearly fails to disclose the
claimed communication line port.” Appeal Br. 9. This is because if Coulter
fails to disclose the recited single communication line (i.e., “information and
electrical power”), “then it goes to reason that Coulter cannot disclose” the
recited port as well. Appeal Br. 9. Here, Appellant is focusing on Coulter
alone, and is not also taking into account the Examiner’s reliance on the
teachings of Park (and Beisheim as needed) for such disclosure. See Final
Act. 3. Thus, Appellant is not persuasive of Examiner error by arguing the
art individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Appellant also contends, “nothing in Beisheim cures the deficiencies
of Coulter and Park, as Beisheim also fails to disclose the claimed
communication line port, single external communication line, and
Appeal 2018-003207
Application 13/716,470

7
processing device.” Appeal Br. 10. However, as noted above, Beisheim
was not specifically relied upon for such teachings, but instead for the
receipt of the recited first information. See Final Act. 3. Consequently, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred by the stated reliance on the combined
teachings of Coulter and Park (and Beisheim). See Final Act. 2–3.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6–11,
and 13 as unpatentable over Coulter, Park, and Beisheim.
The remaining rejections of claims 5, 12, and 14–21
As noted above, in rejecting claims 5, 12, and 14–21, the Examiner
relied on the teachings of Coulter, Park, and Beisheim in combination with
the teachings of Caliendo (claim 5), Mullin (claim 12), Finkam (claims 14–
16, 18, 20, 21), and Finkam and Caliendo (claims 17, 19). In each instance,
Appellant contends that the additionally cited reference “fails to overcome
the deficiencies of Coulter in view of Park and Beisheim” (or language to
that effect). Appeal Br. 10–12. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive
of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 12,
and 14–21.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–11,
13
103(a) Coulter, Park,
Beisheim
1–4, 6–11,
13

5 103(a) Coulter, Park,
Beisheim, Caliendo
5
Appeal 2018-003207
Application 13/716,470

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12 103(a) Coulter, Park,
Beisheim, Mullin
12
14–16, 18,
20, 21
103(a) Coulter, Park,
Finkam, Beisheim
14–16, 18,
20, 21

17, 19 103(a) Coulter, Park,
Finkam, Beisheim,
Caliendo
17, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–21
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED