Pankajv.Kalore

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 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