Terence MullinDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 20212020004674 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 11/248,100 10/12/2005 Terence J. Mullin 1428-001.101 3164 22145 7590 04/02/2021 Klein, O''Neill & Singh, LLP 30 CORPORATE PARK SUITE 211 IRVINE, CA 92606 EXAMINER ERMLICK, WILLIAM D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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): KOS_Docketing@koslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TERENCE J. MULLIN ____________ Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 10, and 12–31, which are all the pending claims. 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 Terence J. Mullin as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 2 CLAIMS Appellant’s disclosure relates to monitoring devices equipped with “condition sensors” and “delivering appropriate instruction in real time to device users as needed.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. A system for monitoring an electromechanical device and automatically delivering content-appropriate instructional information to a user interface, comprising: an electromechanical device having at least one sensor adapted to detect a physical condition of a mechanical component of the device and to generate a sensor signal indicating the detected condition; a content server in continuous electronic communication with the device during normal and abnormal operation of the device and adapted to receive the sensor signal in real time as it is generated and to analyze the sensor signal, the content server comprising a device database having technical information concerning sensor signals, comprising a library of graphics-based instructional material corresponding to particular sensor signals, and a criteria for determining whether a sensor signal indicates a potential need for instructional material; wherein the content server is adapted to automatically access the device database upon receiving the sensor signal to determine the meaning of the sensor signal, whether instructional material is indicated, and to identify appropriate instructional material based upon the sensor signal if indicated; wherein instructional material is determined to be indicated when the content server determines that a detected device condition corresponding to the sensor signal should be changed to a desired device condition, and wherein such change requires physical intervention with the mechanical component of the device by a user; and a graphical user interface positioned at or adjacent the device during normal and abnormal operation of the device; Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 3 wherein the content server is configured to automatically communicate the identified graphics-based instructional material to the user interface, the graphics-based instructional material being configured to instruct the user in a step-by-step manner how to physically intervene with the mechanical component of the device in order to change the device from the detected condition to the desired condition. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sisley US 5,467,268 Nov. 14, 1995 Williams US 5,754,451 May 19, 1998 Thiel US 6,381,509 B1 Apr. 30, 2002 Mitchell US 6,574,672 B1 June 3, 2003 Berg US 2002/0022969 A1 Feb. 21, 2002 Edwards US 2002/0156695 A1 Oct. 24, 2002 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6, 16–18, and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Williams. Final Act. 3. Claims 3–5 and 23–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams and Edwards. Final Act. 9. Claims 7, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams and Mitchell. Final Act. 12. Claims 10, 12, 19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams and Berg. Final Act. 13. Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 4 Claims 13–15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams, Berg, and Sisley. Final Act. 16. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams and Thiel. Final Act. 18. ANALYSIS Anticipation by Williams (Claims 1, 6, 16–18, and 29–31) Claims 1, 6, 29, and 30 Appellant contends that Williams fails to disclose all limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–13. First, claim 1 recites that “the content server is configured to automatically communicate the identified graphics-based instructional material to the user interface.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appellant contends that “Williams will display a series of images if the operator needs them . . . . Thus, Williams does not appear to teach automatically communicating any instructional material to a user.” Id. at 12 (citing Williams col. 3, ll. 65–66). The Examiner responds that Williams’ “system acts to communicate a series of images to the user if requested by the user, wherein the communication itself occurs autonomously by the computer without any external assistance.” Ans. 23 (citing Williams col. 1, ll. 59–67, col. 3, l. 60– col. 4, l. 6). The Examiner submits, essentially, that claim 1 does not require that the communication “be done without any human prompting the need for such materials,” as this “is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.” Id. Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 5 Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive. As disclosed in Williams, when preventative maintenance device 10 determines that a part is experiencing a fault, the device causes pictorial views (i.e., a plurality of views) to be displayed on display device 32. Williams, col. 3, ll. 62–65. This would involve “communicating” the pictorial views. Williams then explains, “[i]f the operator is unsure of the part location or how to service the part, a series of images are displayed on the display device 32 to direct the operator. The series of images are utilized to lead the operator through . . . a fault solution procedure.” Id. at col. 3, l. 65–col. 4, l. 3. Accordingly, Williams discloses that pictorial views are displayed on display device 32 when a fault occurs. Williams does not appear to disclose that the operator must first request the pictorial views for them to be displayed. We interpret Williams’ description that, “[i]f the operator is unsure of the part location or how to service the part,” to imply that the operator may not be “unsure of the part location or how to service the part.” In other words, the pictorial views that are displayed on display device 32 can be sufficient to enable the operator to locate the part and service it. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not recite any limitation that precludes the operator in Williams from obtaining additional information for display on display device 32, such as the series of images. Claim 1 also recites that “the graphics-based instructional material being configured to instruct the user in a step-by-step manner how to physically intervene with the mechanical component of the device.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appellant asserts, “since Williams’s images are simply images of ‘the manufacturing equipment 12’ . . . Williams cannot be taken to teach an operat[o]r ‘how to physically Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 6 intervene’ with any components.” Id. at 12 (citing Williams, col. 3, ll. 60–61). This contention is unpersuasive. Williams discloses that “the display device displays an image of the machine including an image of the component therein, wherein the image of the component is highlighted in a predetermined manner to indicate the fault condition.” Williams, col. 1, ll. 59–63 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the displayed images in Williams are not limited to images of manufacturing equipment 12, as Appellant seems to contend. Appellant further contends that Williams “is vague about how the pictures are used, and doesn’t mention any use of text in the associated embodiment. There is no indication that such images teach step-by-step instructions.” Appeal Br. 12. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons. First, claim 1 does not recite any limitation that the “graphics-based instructional material” includes “text.” Unclaimed limitations cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Second, the Examiner submits that the particular information that is displayed represents non-functional descriptive material. Final Act. 6; Ans. 21. “[A] limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information.” See In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Printed matter itself is non-statutory subject matter, and accordingly, it must have a functional relationship to a physical substrate holding the printed matter in order to be given patentable weight. See, e.g., In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969). Moreover, even if a functional relationship exists, the descriptive material must be functionally different from the prior Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 7 art. That is, the functional relationship must be “new and nonobvious.” See King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the Examiner determines that the content of the information communicated to the user interface does not limit Williams’ system. Ans. 21. Third, Williams teaches that the series of images displayed on display screen 32 direct the operator and lead the operator through a fault solution procedure. See Williams, col. 3, l. 65–col. 4, l. 3. The pictorial views and images provide information to allow the operator to locate and then service the part. The fault solution procedure would require the operator to follow steps or instructions as provided in the series of images. Williams discloses that the instructions “are advantageous in facilitating ease in performing maintenance by an operator.” Williams col. 5, l. 67–col. 6, l. 1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Williams teaches that the operator receives images or pictorial views of the machine component (part), the part’s location, and instruction as how to service the part following a fault solution procedure to address the fault. We are unpersuaded that the recited graphics-based- instructional materials communicated to the user interface for the user is functionally different from the information provided to display device and user in Williams. Appellant also contends, “since Williams only identifies a ‘potential problem area’ or ‘possible failure points’, Williams never truly identifies whether any particular potential problem area or possible failure point needs to be changed to a different condition (i.e., a ‘desired condition’).” Appeal Br. 12. Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 8 We disagree. Williams discloses that “[t]he computer is further operative to detect a fault condition for a component of the machine.” Williams col. 1, ll. 51–53. Accordingly, the computer detects an actual fault, and then, the operator is informed of the part location and fault condition “to facilitate a corrective measure.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 55–59. By performing the corrective measure to address the fault associated with the part, the device’s condition would be changed from a “detected condition” (i.e., a condition including the fault) to a “desired condition” (i.e., a condition that does not include the fault). As Appellant’s contentions do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 6, 29, and 30 depending therefrom and not separately argued, as anticipated by Williams. Claim 31 Claim 31 depends ultimately from claim 1 and recites that “the electromechanical device does not have a computer processor.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appellant contends that “Williams specifically teaches that it[s] preventative maintenance device 10 is to be used with a machine controlled by a PLC, which ‘includes a processor.’” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Williams col. 2, ll. 54–61). According to Appellant, Williams teaches the opposite of the claim 31 requirement. Id. Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive. Williams discloses that “[t]he preventative maintenance device 10 provides preventative maintenance and diagnostic information for a machine, such as manufacturing equipment 12, controlled by a programmable logic controller 14. The programmable logic controller 14 includes a processor 16 and an input/output memory 20.” Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 9 Williams col. 2, ll. 54–59. The Examiner’s position is that Williams’ manufacturing equipment 12 corresponds to the recited electromechanical device. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 22. We agree with the Examiner that Williams’ PLC including PLC memory 20 and processor 16 is not disclosed as being part of manufacturing equipment 12. Rather, Figure 1 of Williams shows that manufacturing equipment 12 is connected to the PLC via input/output cards 22. Williams discloses that “[t]he input/output memory 20 contains a memory location for each of a plurality of inputs received from the manufacturing equipment 12, and a corresponding memory location for each of a plurality of outputs to the manufacturing equipment 12.” Williams, col. 2, ll. 62–55. Accordingly, input/output memory 20 is a separate component from manufacturing equipment 12. It thus follows that processor 16, which is also part of the PLC, is also separate from manufacturing equipment 12. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings, we sustain the rejection of claim 31 as anticipated by Williams. Claims 16–18 Appellant contends Williams does not disclose “determin[ing] whether a response action requiring physical intervention with a mechanical component of the device by a user is warranted in response to the device condition,” and, “if a response action is warranted, accessing a database to provide instructional media concerning the steps a user must take to physically intervene with the mechanical component of the device so as to address the device condition.” Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner responds that Williams always determines/assumes that a physical intervention by a user of some kind is needed to resolve a fault Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 10 state, and provides identified instructions to the user accordingly. Ans. 20 (citing Williams, col. 3, l. 45–4, l. 6, col. 5, ll. 25–60). The Examiner submits that “[t]his determination/assumption is illustrated through the kinds of instructions and guidance provided by the device in response to a fault state, all of which require some form of physical intervention with the device in order to resolve the fault state.” Id. Appellant acknowledges that Williams discloses supplying images of manufacturing equipment 12, but contends that “Williams cannot be taken to teach an operator how ‘to physically intervene’ with any components.” Appeal Br. 14. We disagree. As discussed above, Williams teaches that the operator can receive pictorial views and images of the machine component (part), the part’s location, and instructions for servicing the part following a fault solution procedure to address the fault. Williams discloses that the preventive maintenance device can monitor wear information for parts in the manufacturing equipment, and automatically provide warnings based on the wear. See Williams, col. 4, ll. 38–45. It is not apparent how such faults related to part wear could be corrected without some physical intervention, such as to replace the part, during the fault solution procedure. Appellant further contends that Williams is vague about how the pictures are used, does not mention any use of text in the associated embodiment, and there is no indication that such images provide multi-step instructions. Appeal Br. 14. These contentions are unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above for the rejection of claim 1. As Appellant’s contentions do not apprise us of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of claim 16, and claims 17 and 18 depending therefrom and not separately argued, as anticipated by Williams. Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 11 Obviousness over Williams and Edwards (Claims 3–5 and 23–26) Appellant does not present substantive argument to address the rejection of claims 3–5 and 23–26, which depend ultimately from claim 1 or 16. Hence, we sustain the rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as for claims 1 and 16. Obviousness over Williams and Mitchell (Claims 7, 21, and 22) Claims 7 and 21 depend ultimately from claims 1 and 16, respectively, and both recite the limitation “the instructional material comprises full motion video.” Appeal Br. 21, 23 (Claims App.). Claim 22 depends from claim 21. The Examiner relies on Mitchell as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 12. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Williams to have the instructional content include full motion video clips, as taught by Mitchell, to “increas[e] the engagement and amount of information communicated via the instructions for the benefit of aiding the user in understanding the tasks that need to be performed.” Id. Appellant contends that, in Mitchell, the user is a technician and the portable computer is separate from the malfunctioning device. Appeal Br. 17. According to Appellant, modifying Williams as proposed by the Examiner would destroy the stated purpose of Williams, as Mitchell’s system is controlled by a technician, “which is the opposite of the illiterate operator envisioned by Williams[, and] Mitchell’s system is . . . not tied to any particular machine.” Id. at 18. Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 12 Appellant’s contentions fail to address the Examiner’s proposed combination of the teachings of Williams and Mitchell. As these contentions do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claims 7, 21, and 22 as unpatentable over Williams and Mitchell. Obviousness over Williams and Berg (Claims 10, 12, 19, and 28) As for claim 10, the Examiner concedes Williams does not disclose that the computer is a remote device that monitors a plurality of electromechanical devices. Final Act. 15. The Examiner relies on Berg as teaching this limitation. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Williams to have computer 33 be a remote computer, which services multiple equipment units, as taught by Berg, “for the purpose of increasing the extensibility of the system to service multiple equipment devices and to reduce the amount of storage required on the local device for the benefit of increasing the accessibility of the system to computers of lesser performance capabilities.” Id. at 16. Appellant contends that Williams does not: automatically deliver instructional media; show a user how to physically intervene with any particular mechanical component of the machine, or clearly indicate that any instructional media provide step-by-step instructions how to physically intervene; and determine whether any potential problem area or possible failure point is, in fact, an error condition that would require a “resolution procedure involving human physical intervention with a mechanical component,” as recited in claim 10. Id. at 16. Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 13 Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning for claim 10, and Appellant does not provide separate argument for claims 12 and 28 depending from claim 10, or claim 19 depending from claim 16, we sustain the rejection of claims 10, 12, 19, and 28 as unpatentable over Williams and Berg. Obviousness over Williams, Berg, and Sisley (Claims 13–15 and 27) Obviousness over Williams and Thiel (Claim 20) Appellant does not present separate argument for the rejections of claims 13–15, 20, and 27, which depend ultimately from claim 10 or 16. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claims 13–15 and 27 as unpatentable over Williams, Berg, and Sisley, and the rejection of claim 20 as unpatentable over Williams and Thiel for the same reasons as for claims 10 and 16. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6, 16–18, 29–31 102(b) Williams 1, 6, 16– 18, 29– 31 3–5, 23–26 103(a) Williams, Edwards 3–5, 23– 26 7, 21, 22 103(a) Williams, Mitchell 7, 21, 22 10, 12, 19, 28 103(a) Williams, Berg 10, 12, 19, 28 13–15, 27 103(a) Williams, Berg, Sisley 13–15, 27 20 Williams, Thiel 20 Appeal 2020-004674 Application 11/248,100 14 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1, 3–7, 10, 12– 31 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation