09967742 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2011)

Ex Parte Batke et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 1, 2011

09967742 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte BRIAN A. BATKE, GARY W. BACZKOWSKI, and KENWOOD H. HALL ____________________ Appeal 2011-001829 Application 09/967,742 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001829 Application 09/967,742 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-18 and 27-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim(s) Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. An industrial control system for controlling an industrial process comprising: a plurality of control devices providing control signals to direct the industrial process by outputting signals to the controlled industrial process within a predictable maximum response time, wherein each of the control devices includes web page data concerning a respective web page associated with the respective control device; a web access module including a web server, an Internet interface and a control-network interface the control network interface providing communications on the communication link within a predictable maximum response time; wherein the Internet interface is capable of being coupled to a remote device via the Internet, and wherein the control- network interface is coupled to a plurality of control devices through the communication link being at least a portion of a network separating the control devices with webpage data from the web access module holding the server; wherein the web access module is capable of receiving requests from the remote device to access any of the web pages associated with a plurality of control devices identified by an Internet address unique to a control device; and wherein, in response to receiving the requests, the web access module obtains the web page data concerning the web Appeal 2011-001829 Application 09/967,742 3 pages for which access has been requested, processes the web page data at the web server, and sends data signals related to the web page data onto the Internet to be received by the remote device. Examiner’s Rejections 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-15, 18, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fowler (US 6,714,977) and Tadokoro (US 6,463,352). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fowler, Tadokoro, and Dodd (US 6,505,086). Appellant’s Contentions Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable because Fowler describes a computer monitoring system that does not provide control signals or control of a process as required by the claims. (App. Br. 13). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-18 and 27-29 as being obvious? ANALYSIS Appellants present numerous arguments as to why the Examiner has erred. (App. Br. 10-23). We agree with Appellants’ above contention which we have specifically cited. Appeal 2011-001829 Application 09/967,742 4 Fowler does not teach web access to industrial process control devices. However we note that such devices are found in the Schneider Automation Inc. system shown in Papadopoulos (US 6,282,454) “Web Interface to a Programmable Controller”, related Baker (US 7,058,693) “System for Programming a Programmable Logic Controller using a Web Browser”, and related Lindner (US 6,640,140) “PLC Executive with Integrated Web Server”. 1 CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 and 27-29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) On this record, claims 1-18 and 27-29 have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner’ rejections of claims 1-18 and 27-29 are reversed. REVERSED msc 1 See also related patents Papadopoulos (US 6,061,603), (US 6,587,884), and (US 6,484,061); Baker (US 7,035,898); and Swales (US 6,151,625), (US 6,321,272), and (US 6,760,782).