ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2020

14268849 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
14/268,849 05/02/2014 Michael J. Pantaleano 2014P-046-US 8386
70640 7590 07/31/2020
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC / SR
Attn: Linda Kasulke
1201 S. 2nd Street
E-7C19
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
HENRY, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2020 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):
raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com
sarah@setterroche.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. PANTALEANO, GEORGE K. PETERS, and
MATTHEW C. GIORDANO
___________

Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an application associated with an industrial
automation environment, including a graphical user interface with the
application having key performance indicators (KPIs) linked to a home
screen of an operating system. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with bracketing added and with disputed limitations in italics:
1. One or more computer-readable storage media
having program instructions stored thereon to facilitate
visualization of an application associated with an industrial
automation environment, wherein the program instructions,
when executed by a computing system, direct the computing
system to at least:
[i] render a graphical user interface to the application
associated with the industrial automation environment having a
plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with
operations of the industrial automation environment;
[ii] in the application associated with the industrial
automation environment, receive a selection of at least one KPI
of the plurality of KPIs of the application and instructions to

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. (Br. 1.)
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

3
link the at least one KPI of the application to a home screen of
an operating system;
[iii] responsive to the instructions to link the at least one
KPI to the home screen of the operating system, display a
visualization of KPI data associated with the at least one KPI of
the application associated with the industrial automation
environment on the home screen of the operating system; and
[iv] dynamically update the visualization of the KPI data
associated with the at least one KPI of the application
associated with the industrial automation environment on the
home screen of the operating system upon receipt of updated
KPI data provided from the application to the operating system,
wherein the application associated with the industrial
automation environment is configured to retrieve the updated
KPI data live and from a data source associated with the at least
one KPI and provide the updated KPI data to the operating
system.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Pingel et al. US 2010/0082125 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
Ku et al. US 2013/0138723 A1 May 30, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ku and Pingel.

Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

4
OPINION
§ 101 Rejection
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 9–10) that
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner determined that claims 1, 9, and 17 “are rejected under
35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory
subject matter.” (Final Act. 8.) In particular, the Examiner determined that
the claims “are considered to be abstract ideas and (collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying it (Electric Power Group) and classifying and
storing digital images in an organized manner (TLI), which are concepts held
by the courts to be abstract.” (Id. at 9.)
Moreover, the Examiner determined the following:
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the
claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no
more than: (i) the claim does not amount to an improvement to
another technology or technical field; (ii) the claim does not
amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer
itself; (iii) the claim does not move beyond a general link of the
use of an abstract idea to a particular technological
environment; (iv) the claim merely amounts to the application
or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer where
receiving data.
(Id. at 10.) We do not agree.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

5
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

6
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. at 191 (citing Benson and Flook); see also, e.g., id. at 187
(“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving
of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing]
generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019); see also USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 17, 2019).
Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

7
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. 2019)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 84 Fed. Reg. 56.

Are the claims at issue directed
to a patent-ineligible concept?
Step One
Claims 1 and 17 are computer-readable storage media claims, which
fall within the “manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Similarly,
claim 9 is a method claim, which falls within the “process” category of 35
U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 17 fall within one of the four
statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
Although claims 1, 9, and 17 fall within the statutory categories, we
must still determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception,
namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. Thus, we must
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

8
determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception and whether the
exception is integrated into a practical application. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–
55. If a claim recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial
exception into a practical application, the claim is directed to a judicial
exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test. See id.

Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations: “[i] render a
graphical user interface . . . with the industrial automation environment
having a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs),” “[ii] . . . receive a
selection of at least one KPI of the plurality of KPIs of the application and
instructions to link the at least one KPI of the application to a home screen
of an operating system,” and “[iii] responsive to the instructions to link the
at least one KPI to the home screen of the operating system, display a
visualization of KPI data associated with the at least one KPI of the
application associated with the industrial automation environment on the
home screen of the operating system.” Such limitations of claim 1 recite a
patent-ineligible abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human
activity, such as following rules or instructions. See e.g., TLI
Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[T]he claims . . . are simply directed to the abstract idea of
classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.”); see also 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
Independent claim 1 further recites “[iii] . . . display a visualization of
KPI data associated with the at least one KPI of the application associated
with the industrial automation environment” and “[iv] dynamically update
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

9
the visualization of the KPI data . . . .” Such limitations of claim 1 recite a
patent-ineligible abstract idea of mental processes, such as collecting,
analyzing, and displaying information. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The advance they
purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a
specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular
assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.”); see also
84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Claims 9 and 17
recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. Thus,
claims 9 and 17 also recite a judicial exception.

Step 2A, Prong Two
Because claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea, we next determine
if they recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Computer-readable storage media claim 1 further recites “[i] render a
graphical user interface . . . having a plurality of key performance indicators
(KPIs) associated with operations of the industrial automation environment,”
“[ii] receive a selection of at least one KPI of the plurality of KPIs of the
application and instructions to link the at least one KPI of the application to
a home screen of an operating system,” “[iii] responsive to the instructions
to link the at least one KPI to the home screen of the operating system,
display a visualization of KPI data associated with the at least one KPI,”
and “[iv] dynamically update the visualization of the KPI data associated
with the at least one KPI of the application associated with the industrial
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

10
automation environment on the home screen of the operating system”
(emphases added).
Appellant’s Specification discloses the following:
By interacting with the graphical user interface, a user
may select one or more of the KPIs displayed by the
application, and may further provide an instruction to link or
“pin” the one or more KPIs selected to a home screen of an
operating system executing on the computing system. When a
KPI is pinned to the home screen of the operating system, an
icon, tile, widget, or some other graphical representation of the
KPI is typically displayed on the home screen. The application
may then provide a “live feed” of dynamic KPI data to the
operating system for display within the graphical
representation of the KPI that is pinned to the home screen.
This feed of dynamic KPI data may be continuously updated by
the application so that the visualization of the KPI displayed on
the home screen shows the most current information associated
with the KPI.
(Spec. ¶ 17 (emphases added).)
Advantageously, the application executing on computing
system 100 provides a mechanism to link one or more KPIs
110–113 to the home screen of the operating system. For
example, the user can decide which of the application’s KPIs
are most important and select them for more frequent and
convenient viewing by linking them to the home screen. In this
manner, the user is afforded the ability to customize what
information appears on the home screen instead of being
limited to the information that the application programmer
predetermined for the entire application. The application then
feeds live data for each of the KPIs that are linked to the home
screen, so that the visualizations of these KPIs always provide
the most current data on the home screen of the operating
system.
(Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added).)
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

11
Thus, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1, when
read in the context of Appellant’s Specification, integrates the recited
abstract idea into a practical application by improving computer technology.
In particular, as confirmed by Appellant’s Specification, the limitations of
claim 1 permit the user to select from “a plurality of key performance
indicators (KPIs) associated with operations of the industrial automation
environment” on a graphical user interface (GUI) for “visualization of KPI
data . . . associated with the industrial automation environment on the home
screen,” such that the KPI data is “dynamically” updated on the home
screen. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 1 “disclose[s] a specific
manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than
using [a] conventional user interface” and “these claims recite a specific
improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for
electronic devices.” Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics,
Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as follows:
Similarly, the disclosed and recited invention of the
present application improves efficiency by displaying data from
the application associated with the industrial automation
environment on the home screen of the operating system
without having to open the application up. As in Core
Wireless, the language in claim 1 clearly indicates that the
claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of
computers.
(Br. 10 (emphases omitted).)
Accordingly, claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 9 and 17 recite
limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

12
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–20 depend from
independent claims 1, 9, and 17. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
2–8, 10–16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons
discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 17.

§ 103 Rejection
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 17–18, 20–
22) that the combination of Ku and Pingel would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “render a graphical user
interface to the application associated with the industrial automation
environment having a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs)
associated with operations of the industrial automation environment.”
The Examiner found that the dynamic icons of Ku, located on a home
page of touchscreen 132, correspond to the limitation “render a graphical
user interface to the application.” (Final Act. 12–13.) The Examiner further
found that the GUI of Pingel, which includes an application for industrial
control information, corresponds to the limitations “key performance
indicators (KPIs) associated with operations of the industrial automation
environment.” (Id. at 14–15.) The Examiner concluded that “it would have
been obvious . . . to have modified the teachings of Ku et al. to incorporate
the teachings as taught by Pingel et al. in order to ensure all systems are
running appropriately thereby reducing the risk of accidents or failures.”
(Id. at 18.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Ku relates to icons, in particular, “to an icon that can be dynamically
updated.” (¶ 1.) In one example of a dynamic icon, Ku explains that “a
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

13
weather application that can be downloaded onto mobile phones” and “[t]he
weather icon is updated through a push service whenever updates are
available.” (¶ 4.) Figure 1 of Ku illustrates mobile device 100 with
touchscreen 132, such that “touchscreen 132 can support dynamic browser
icons” with “[t]he dynamic browser icons . . . displayed on a home screen.”
(¶ 25.) Because Ku explains that touchscreen 132 includes a dynamic
browser icon, Ku teaches the limitation “render a graphical user interface to
the application.”
Pingel relates to “[a] guidance system of an industrial process captures
process parameter data that is correlated with a human-machine interface
(HMI) in order to learn how an experienced operator selects visualizations of
key performance indicators (KPI) in order to take a corrective action to
address an abnormal or non-optimal performance condition.” (¶ 24.) Pingel
explains that users can interact with a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to
provide industrial control information, which includes “any type of
application that sends, retrieves, processes, and/or manipulates factory input
data, receives, displays, formats, and/or communicates output data, and/or
facilitates operation of the enterprise.” (¶ 27.) Because Pingel provides an
application that for visualization of key performance indicators for an
industrial process, Pingel teaches the limitation “application associated with
the industrial automation environment having a plurality of key performance
indicators (KPIs) associated with operations of the industrial automation
environment.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the application of Pingel, for monitoring key performance
indicators (KPI) in an industrial application, with mobile device 100 of Ku,
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

14
which supports dynamic browser icons displayed on a home screen, would
improve Ku by providing the user with the ability to monitor abnormal or
non-optimal process conditions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Alternatively, combining Ku
and Pingel is nothing more than incorporating the known application of
Pingel, for monitoring key performance indicators (KPI) in an industrial
application, with known mobile device 100 of Ku, which supports dynamic
browser icons displayed on a home screen, to yield predictable results. See
id. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 18) that
modifying Ku to include the application of Pingel would have been obvious.
Appellant argues that “the dynamic icons of Ku are used for
completely different technical purposes than the claimed KPIs” and “the
dynamic icons of Ku are merely links to third-party browsers.” (Br. 17
(emphases omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Pingel, rather than
Ku, for teaching the limitation “key performance indicators (KPIs)
associated with operations of the industrial automation environment.” (Final
Act. 14–15.) The rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Ku and
Pingel, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the
references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant further argues that “there is no motivation to combine the
dynamic browser icons of Ku with the parameter data (i.e., key performance
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

15
indicators) of Pingel.” (Br. 20–21.) Similarly, Appellant argues “that no
one skilled in the art would be motivated at the time of the invention to use
the parameter data of Pingel as links to the third-party websites of Ku.” (Id.
at 22.) However, as discussed previously, the combination of Ku and Pingel
is based on the improvement of a similar device in the same way as in the
prior art, or alternatively, combining known elements to achieve predictable
results.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ku and
Pingel would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation “render a graphical user interface to the application associated
with the industrial automation environment having a plurality of key
performance indicators (KPIs) associated with operations of the industrial
automation environment.”
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 19) that
the combination of Ku and Pingel would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “receive a selection of at
least one KPI of the plurality of KPIs of the application and instructions to
link the at least one KPI of the application to a home screen of an operating
system.”
The Examiner found that dynamic icons of Ku, which can be located
on the home page, corresponds to the limitation “receive a selection of . . .
the application and instructions to link the . . . the application to a home
screen of an operating system.” (Final Act. 13.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Figure 9 of Ku illustrates a flowchart “for generating and updating a
dynamic icon,” including “a request . . . received to add a dynamic icon to a
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

16
home screen.” (¶ 42.) Figure 6 of Ku illustrates a flowchart for adding a
third-party website, such that “[a] user . . . performs a command that pins the
site 620 to the user’s home screen.” (¶ 38.) Because Ku explains that
multiple dynamic icons can be selected and such icons can be pinned and
added to a home screen, Ku teaches the limitation “receive a selection of . . .
the application and instructions to link the at least one . . . of the application
to a home screen of an operating system.”
As discussed previously, Pingel relates to “[a] guidance system of an
industrial process captures process parameter data that is correlated with a
human-machine interface (HMI) in order to learn how an experienced
operator selects visualizations of key performance indicators (KPI) in order
to take a corrective action to address an abnormal or non-optimal
performance condition.” (¶ 24.) Pingel explains that users can interact with
a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to provide industrial control information,
which includes “any type of application that sends, retrieves, processes,
and/or manipulates factory input data, receives, displays, formats, and/or
communicates output data, and/or facilitates operation of the enterprise.”
(¶ 27.) Because Pingel provides an application for visualization of key
performance indicators for an industrial process, Pingel teaches the
limitation “at least one KPI of the plurality of KPIs of the application.”
Appellant argues “Ku fails to disclose, teach, or suggest ‘receive a
selection of at least one KPI of the plurality of KPIs of the application and
instructions to link the at least one KPI of the application to a home screen
of an operating system,’ as required by claim 1” because “as noted . . . in
Ku’s paragraph [0038], ‘a user then performs a command that pins the site
620 to the user’s home screen;’ therefore, it is site 620 that gets pinned to the
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

17
home screen, not the dynamic icon as suggested by the Examiner’s analysis,
or the KPI as required by claim 1.” (Br. 19 (emphasis omitted).) However,
the Examiner cited to Pingel, rather than Ku, for teaching the limitation “at
least one KPI of the plurality of KPIs of the application.” (Final Act. 14–
15.) Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Ku and
Pingel, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the
references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ku and
Pingel would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation “receive a selection of at least one KPI of the plurality of KPIs
of the application and instructions to link the at least one KPI of the
application to a home screen of an operating system.”
Third, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 23) that the
combination of Ku and Pingel would not have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “responsive to the instructions to link
the at least one KPI to the home screen of the operating system, display a
visualization of KPI data associated with the at least one KPI of the
application associated with the industrial automation environment on the
home screen of the operating system.”
The Examiner found that the dynamic browser icon of Ku, which can
be displayed on the home screen of touchscreen 132 as to display the
updates to the dynamic browser icon, corresponds to the limitation
“responsive to the instructions to link . . . to the home screen of the operating
system, display a visualization . . . on the home screen of the operating
system.” (Final Act. 13.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

18
As discussed previously, Figure 1 of Ku illustrates mobile device 100
with touchscreen 132, such that “touchscreen 132 can support dynamic
browser icons” with “[t]he dynamic browser icons . . . displayed on a home
screen.” (¶ 25.) Figure 5 of Ku illustrates a flowchart for “updating a
dynamic browser icon,” such that “[t]he information can be from a third-
party server and includes updates to the dynamic icon.” (¶ 37.) Figure 9 of
Ku illustrates a flowchart “for generating and updating a dynamic icon,”
such that “the dynamic icon image is updated so as to display the update.”
(¶ 42.) Because Ku explains that a dynamic browser icon displayed on the
home screen can be updated, such that the updates are displayed, Ku teaches
the limitation “responsive to the instructions to link . . . to the home screen
of the operating system, display a visualization . . . on the home screen of the
operating system.”
As discussed previously, Pingel relates to “[a] guidance system of an
industrial process captures process parameter data that is correlated with a
human-machine interface (HMI) in order to learn how an experienced
operator selects visualizations of key performance indicators (KPI) in order
to take a corrective action to address an abnormal or non-optimal
performance condition.” (¶ 24.) Pingel explains that users can interact with
a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to provide industrial control information,
which includes “any type of application that sends, retrieves, processes,
and/or manipulates factory input data, receives, displays, formats, and/or
communicates output data, and/or facilitates operation of the enterprise.”
(¶ 27.) Because Pingel provides an application for visualization of key
performance indicators for an industrial process, Pingel teaches the
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

19
limitation “a visualization of KPI data associated with the at least one KPI of
the application associated with the industrial automation environment.”
Appellant argues that
[a]s Pingel is not teaching or suggesting the home screen of an
operating system, it follows that Pingel fails to explicitly teach
‘display a visualization of KPI data associated with the at least
one KPI of the application . . . on the home screen of the
operating system,’ as required by claim 1.
(Br. 23.) However, the Examiner cited to Ku, rather than Pingel, for
teaching the limitation “the home screen of the operating system.” (Final
Act. 13.) Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Ku
and Pingel, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the
references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ku and
Pingel would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation “responsive to the instructions to link the at least one KPI to
the home screen of the operating system, display a visualization of KPI data
associated with the at least one KPI of the application associated with the
industrial automation environment on the home screen of the operating
system.”
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 23) that the
combination of Ku and Pingel would not have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “dynamically update the visualization
of the KPI data associated with the at least one KPI of the application
associated with the industrial automation environment on the home screen of
the operating system upon receipt of updated KPI data provided from the
application to the operating system.”
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

20
The Examiner found that the performance indicator (KPI) guidance
system of Pingel, which collects real-time data for industrial process 102 for
visualization, corresponds to the limitation “dynamically update the
visualization of the KPI data associated with the at least one KPI of the
application associated with the industrial automation environment on the
home screen of the operating system upon receipt of updated KPI data
provided from the application to the operating system.” (Final Act. 15–17.)
We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Figure 3 of Pingel illustrates industrial guidance system 300, which
includes human-machine interface (HMI) 314 interacting with visualization
system 362 for providing key performance indicators (KPIs). (¶ 40.) Pingel
explains that a key performance indicator (KPI) guidance system defines a
solution “for future use . . . of a key performance indicator (KPI) indicative
of the characterized problem, a visualization for the KPI, and a control
correction that addresses the KPI” based upon collected real-time data from
industrial process 102. (¶ 13.) Because Pingel explains that visualization of
KPI is based upon real-time data and can be displayed on visualization
system 362, Pingel teaches the limitation “dynamically update the
visualization of the KPI data associated with the at least one KPI of the
application associated with the industrial automation environment on the
home screen of the operating system upon receipt of updated KPI data
provided from the application to the operating system.”
Appellant argues that “visualization system 362 is used for a
completely different technical purpose than the operating system of claim 1”
and “the visualization system is ‘generally connected to the industrial
controller to provide a human-friendly view into the process instrumented
Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

21
for monitoring or control.’” (Br. 23.) However, the limitation “home screen
of the operating system” is broad enough to encompass visualization system
362 of Pingel. Moreover, even if Appellant is correct that the limitation
“home screen of the operating system” excludes visualization system 362 of
Pingel, Figure 1 of Ku illustrates mobile device 100 having touchscreen 132
with a home screen (¶ 25).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ku and
Pingel would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation “dynamically update the visualization of the KPI data
associated with the at least one KPI of the application associated with the
industrial automation environment on the home screen of the operating
system upon receipt of updated KPI data provided from the application to
the operating system.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2–8 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 17 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 17, as well as dependent claims 10–
16 and 18–20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

Appeal 2019-003493
Application 14/268,849

22
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.

DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20
1–20 103 Ku, Pingel 1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time 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