Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 17, 2021

2020004724 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2021)

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. 15/048,009 02/19/2016 Benjamin LUTZ 5029-1498-381603 7950 27799 7590 06/17/2021 COZEN O''CONNOR 3WTC, 175 Greenwich Street 55th Floor NEW YORK, NY 10007 EXAMINER HIDALGO, FERNANDO N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2827 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/17/2021 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): patentdocket@cozen.com patentsecretary@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BENJAMIN LUTZ Appeal 2020-004724 Application 15/048,009 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, 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 and 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens AG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004724 Application 15/048,009 2 Appellant’s invention is directed to automation equipment that includes at least one automation device and to an operator system for the visualization and operation of sequencers of a sequential control, wherein objects created from the sequencer are processed during a RUN operation of the automation device, the objects parameterize and activate CFC functions loaded into the automation device and defined by a Continuous Function Chart editor, and the interaction and link between the objects and the CFC functions are effected via process values and control signals. (Spec. ¶ 1; Claims 1 and 2). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. Industrial automation equipment comprising: at least one automation device; and an operator system including a processor and memory, said operator system visualizing and operating a sequencer of a sequential control, Sequential Function Chart (SFC) objects created from the sequencer of the sequential control being processed during a run operation of the at least one automation device, the SFC objects parameterizing and activating Continuous Function Chart (CFC) functions loaded into the at least one automation device and defined by a CFC editor, and an interaction and link between the SFC objects and the CFC functions being effected via process values and control signals, the operator system further comprising: an interpreter which interprets and processes the sequential control and which activates the CFC functions in the at least one automation device; an engineering interface via which the sequencer of the sequential control is modified; and an interface via which the sequencer of the sequential control is visualized and processed. Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2020-004724 Application 15/048,009 3 Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Siemens (SIMATIC SFC for S7 Sequential Function Chart Manual (2003)) in view of Siemens 2 (SIMATIC SFC Visualization for S7 Manual (2004)). Appellant’s arguments focus on the subject matter of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 4–7). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Siemens and Siemens 2 are located on pages 2 to 7 of the Final Action. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant argues the Examiner’s reason for combining the references (i.e., Siemens and Siemens 2 provide teaching in sequential control systems for process flow control) is insufficient to establish prima facie obviousness (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is based on hindsight and is not based on a rationale as listed in § 2141(III) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020) (Appeal Br. 5–6). Appellant argues that a skilled person is provided with no reason to combine Siemens and Siemens 2 absent impermissible hindsight (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3). Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds that the combination of Siemens and Siemens 2 is merely the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (Ans. 4). Although Appellant argues the Examiner failed to provide a rationale or reason that Appeal 2020-004724 Application 15/048,009 4 supports the conclusion, or provide an analysis of a known system by which the proffered modification would have been achieved, we understand the Examiner to find that these Siemens authored documents are directed to similar automated sequential control systems such that it would have been obvious to combine their teachings, such as the use of CFCs and SFCs (Reply Br. 2; Final Act. 7). For example, Siemens 2 discloses SFC visualization in system S7 in sequential control systems for process flow control (Siemens 2, 1-1). Siemens discloses SFCs in the context of their use in SIMATIC S7 programmable controllers (Siemens iii). In other words, both Siemens and Siemens 2 are directed to systems for the same model, S7. In light of these findings, the teachings of Siemens and Siemens 2 would have suggested combining the teachings to improve the functionality of the S7 model. The Examiner finds that combining Siemens and Siemens 2 would have been the predictable use of prior art elements (i.e., CFC and SFC) according to their established function (process control in a plant or industrial setting). We agree in that Siemens and Siemens 2 teach improvements on the same model S7. This teaching underscores the Examiner’s rationale for combining these references based on similarity in control systems (i.e., system S7) (Final Act. 7). The Examiner’s rejection is not based on impermissible hindsight, but rather the teachings of the references themselves. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown where Siemens and Siemens 2 teach the “interpreter,” “engineering interface,” and “an interface via which the sequencer of the sequential control is visualized and processed” (Appeal Br. 4). The Examiner finds that Siemens in Figure 1-1 Appeal 2020-004724 Application 15/048,009 5 teaches an interpreter, engineering interface, and visualization interface (Final Act. 6). Although Appellant contends the Examiner’s citation to Figure 1-1 of Siemens is insufficient, the Examiner explains how Figure 1-1 discloses the engineering interface, visualization interface, and the interpreter (Final Act. 2–4, 6). Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Siemens Figure 1-1 other than to say the findings fail to properly account for the claimed subject matter (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner, however, provides specific findings of what elements in Figure 1-1 encompass the engineering interface, and visualization interface (Final Act. 2–4). Regarding the interpreter, the Examiner finds that Siemens Figure 1-1 teaches controlling SFC and CFC (Final Act. 6). The Specification describes “interpreter” as part of the operating system server that interprets and processes the sequential control and for activating the CFC functions 15 in automation device 9 (Spec. ¶ 18). The Examiner finds that Siemens Figure 1-1 shows that system includes controlling and processing SFC and CFC (Final Act. 6). Appellant does not address with particularity or otherwise show reversible error with this finding. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 2 over Siemens and Siemens 2. DECISION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2 103 Siemens, Siemens 2 1, 2 Appeal 2020-004724 Application 15/048,009 6 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED