Ex Parte Braun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2017

13801823 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2017)

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.
13/801,823 03/13/2013 Scott D. Braun 2008P-234-US2ALBR0300-2 8141
42982 7590 12/07/2017
Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19
1201 South Second Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
IMTIAZ, ZOHEB S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2017 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):
howell@fyiplaw.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
raintellectu alproperty @ ra.rockwell .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT D. BRAUN,
WANDA J. MILLER, and
CALVIN C. STEINWEG
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,8231
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Jeung2 in view of Royak.3
1 Applicant, Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. (“Appellant”) is
identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Jeung et al., US 2009/0315496 Al, published Dec. 24, 2009 (“Jeung”).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s reliance on the filing dates for the
provisional applications Jeung claims priority to. Final Act. 2.
3 Royak et al., US 2008/0094015 Al, published Apr. 24, 2008 (“Royak”).
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).4,5
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods and systems for
programming a plurality of motor drives (see, e.g., claims 1, 8, and 15). The
inventors disclose that a typical motor drive may be reprogrammed several
times to adjust to new needs during its lifetime and that programming on an
outgoing drive may need to be transferred or reentered into a new system.
Spec. 13. In view of this, the inventors state it would be advantageous to
provide an improved system and method for updating a programming
configuration of a motor drive. Id. 14.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.4 5 6 Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A method for programming a plurality of motor drives,
comprising:
acquiring a configuration file on a workstation, wherein
the configuration file is indicative of a programming
4 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Specification (Spec.) filed Mar. 13,
2013, the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Apr. 7, 2016, Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Nov. 7, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.)
mailed Mar. 24, 2017, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed Apr.
27, 2017.
5 Appellant states they are unaware of any other appeals or interferences
related to this appeal. Appeal Br. 2. However, this application is a
continuation-in-part of Application 12/241,695, which is also currently
under appeal. The Appeal Brief for Application 12/241,695 was filed June
15, 2016, which was prior to the date the Appeal Brief was filed in this
application. Both applications stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the same references. Therefore, Application 12/241,695 is related to,
directly affects or is directly affected by, or has a bearing on the Board’s
decision in this case. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(h).
6 Appeal Br. 17.
2
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
configuration of the plurality of motor drives;
communicatively coupling the workstation to the
plurality of motor drives, wherein each of the plurality of motor
drives comprise a rectifier configured to output a direct current
(DC) voltage and an inverter module configured to convert the
DC voltage into an alternating current (AC) voltage; and
transferring the programming configuration to each of
the plurality of motor drives communicatively coupled to the
workstation based on a comparison between the configuration
file on the workstation and a current programming
configuration of each of the plurality of motor drives.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds, among other things, that Jeung discloses a
method for programming a plurality of motor drives in which a workstation
is communicatively coupled to a plurality of motor drives and a
programming configuration is transferred to each of the motor drives based
on a comparison between a configuration file on the workstation and a
current programming configuration of the motor drives, as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 2—3.
The Examiner finds Jeung does not specifically disclose a
configuration file on a workstation but that such data is obtained and that
Jeung discloses features similar to those of a workstation. Id. at 3. In view
of this, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to provide a
configuration file on a workstation. Id.
The Examiner finds that Jeung does not explicitly disclose a
comparison is performed between programming configurations, as recited in
claim 1, but Jeung discloses updates, which suggest a comparison because a
comparison must first be performed before an update is carried out. Id. at 3—
4.
3
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
The Examiner further finds that Jeung discloses a motor but not a
motor drive unit. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds Royak discloses a motor
drive unit and concludes it would have been obvious to incorporate the
motor drive unit of Royak because it is a common practice in the field of
motor systems. Id.
Appellant contends that Jeung does not disclose or suggest a
comparison between a programming configuration of a portable memory and
a current programming configuration of a human interface module (as
recited in claims 1, 8, and 15), that updating a computer database or data
library are not equivalent to such a comparison, and that Royak does not
cure these deficiencies. Appeal Br. 5—7, 11—12, 14—15; Reply Br. 2. In
view of these contentions, Appellant asserts the Examiner relied upon a
disclosure that does not necessarily flow from the teachings of the applied
references. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. As discussed above, the
Examiner finds that Jeung does not explicitly disclose a comparison is
performed between programming configurations but Jeung discloses updates
that suggest a comparison because a comparison must first be performed
before an update is carried out. Final Act. 3^4. This finding is based on the
technical reasoning that an update is performed when there is something new
to update (i.e., that a difference exists between what is old and what is new).
Id. Otherwise, an update lacks meaning or is useless. The Examiner further
finds paragraph 76 of Jeung discloses a comparison of operational data.
Ans. 3^4. Paragraph 76 of Jeung discloses operational data collected during
a motor test cycle is compared with information in a data library of a motor
to determine an optimum mode of motor operation.
4
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
Moreover, Jeung discloses analyzing data and/or software from a
source motor to determine if it is useable by a target motor and that a
transfer device 1207 can be configured to convert operational data from a
format used by the source motor to a format used by the target motor. Jeung
||49, 53, 56. Therefore, Jeung discloses a comparison between the formats
of operational data transferred between motors. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a
comparison or difference without specifying a basis for the comparison or
difference and thus encompass the format comparison disclosed by Jeung.
Appellant further asserts that Jeung does not disclose or suggest a
programming configuration, as recited in claims 1,8, and 15, because the
library of Jeung is not an equivalent and Royak does not cure the
deficiencies of Jeung. Appeal Br. 7—8, 12—13, 15; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Jeung is directed to
electronic control systems for motors and the transfer of operational
parameters between motors. Jeung 13. The Examiner finds Figures 1 and 2
of Jeung depict a translation module 110 connected to a plurality of motors.
Ans. 4. Figure 1 of Jeung illustrates a motor 102 having a data port 16.
Jeung || 44, 46. Moreover, Jeung discloses the data port 16 can access a
writable memory 12 of the motor 102 in which operational parameters 14
are stored. Jeung || 44, 46, Figure 1.
Appellant’s Specification states:
The programming configuration of the drive 10 may include any
data, software, or firmware that is used to define the performance
of the drive 10, the appearance or performance of the user
interface of the drive 10, or the performance or user interface
7 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
5
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
appearance of any peripheral devices communicatively coupled
to the drive.
Spec. 119.
Jeung discloses the operational parameters stored on a memory 12 of
a motor and transferred between motors includes “power factor, RPM,
service factor, voltage, current, torque, load, and friction” as well as “data
about a load on which a motor operates, data about the thermal environment
of a motor, data about torque generated by a motor, or data about friction in
the environment of a motor.” Jeung || 3, 43, 44. Such information is data
defining the performance of a drive and therefore falls within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “programming configuration” in view of
Appellant’s Specification. Thus, the disclosure of Jeung supports the
Examiner’s findings regarding the programming configuration recited in
claims 1, 8, and 15.
In addition, Appellant argues that Jeung does not disclose coupling a
workstation to a plurality of motor drives, as recited in claims 1 and 8.
Appeal Br. 8—9, 13—14; Reply Br. 3^4.
These arguments are also unpersuasive. Jeung discloses the data
transfer device 120 can be sequentially connected to a source motor and a
target motor (as recited in claim 15) to transfer data (e.g., the parameters
stored on writable memory 12) and that the transfer device can include a
motor identification module that can include a user interface. Jeung || 26,
27, 57, 60. Jeung further discloses the data transfer device itself can include
a data port connection and can be embodied by software running on a
computer. Id. ]f 56. Appellant’s Specification states a workstation “may be
any suitable computing device, including a personal computer or a mobile
6
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
phone, for example.” Spec. 134. Thus, the data transfer device 120 (i.e.,
computer) of Jeung functions as a workstation,8 according to the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “workstation” in view of Appellant’s
Specification. Moreover, Jeung discloses the data transfer device 120 can
use a network connection or a wireless connection and that multiple motors
can be connected via a network. Id. Tflf 56, 62. Thus, the disclosure of Jeung
supports the Examiner’s findings that Jeung discloses or suggest coupling a
workstation to a plurality of motors.
Appellant further asserts Jeung does not teach or suggest acquiring a
programming configuration related to a motor drive, as recited in claims 1,
8, and 15, because Jeung merely discloses transferring data between motors.
Appeal Br. 10-11, 13—16; Reply Br. 4—5. Appellant argues Royak does not
overcome the deficiencies of Jeung and it is unclear how the motor drive
unit of Royak would have been combined with a motor of Jeung because
Jeung does not disclose receiving three-phase power for a motor, as
disclosed by Royak, and thus there would be no reason to modify Jeung in
view of Royak. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Jeung
discloses the transfer of data between motors and that although Jeung does
not disclose motor drives, Royak discloses the use of a motor drive for the
operation of a motor. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds operational
parameters disclosed by Jeung, such as power factor, voltage, and current,
relate to a motor drive. Id. Moreover, although the disclosure of Jeung
8 Moreover, Appellant states “the ‘workstation’ recited in the claims is
described and defined as a separate device that is connected to the motor
drives by a network.” Reply Br. 4. This corresponds to Jeung’s description
of the data transfer device 120. Jeung | 56.
7
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
focuses on motors, Jeung discloses motors generically and schematically and
does not exclude or otherwise teach away from the use of a motor drive,
such as a three phase power drive. Jeung || 44-47. Royak discloses a
motor drive unit 14 that receives power from a power supply 12 and
“converts the power to a more usable form for the permanent magnet motor
16.” Royak 124. Thus, the disclosure of Royak demonstrates the use of a
motor drive, how the motor drive would be combined with a motor, and why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified a motor to include a
motor drive (i.e., to convert power into a suitable form to drive the motor).
In addition, Appellant contends Jeung and Royak do not disclose or
suggest storing programming configurations that include data, software, or
firmware used to define both a performance of a motor drive and an
appearance or performance of a user interface, as recited in claims 8 and 15.
Appeal Br. 12—13, and 15.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner finds the
operational parameters of Jeung include power factor, RPM, service factor,
voltage, and full load current, as well as data about the load on which a
motor operates, data about the motor’s thermal environment, data about the
motor’s torque, and data about friction in the environment of the motor.
Ans. 5. Paragraph 43 of Jeung supports the Examiner’s findings, which
demonstrate Jeung discloses data defining the performance of a motor, as
recited in claims 8 and 15.
The Examiner further finds Jeung discloses a user interface that
includes a display and other devices for converting information into a
machine-recognizable form and that, when operational parameters are
updated, this will change the appearance of the user interface. Ans. 5. In
8
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
response, Appellant argues the Examiner may mean that what a user sees
will be different “[b]ut the claims relate to the interface appearance being
part of the configuration that is transferred to the motor drive.” Reply Br. 5.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because claims 8 and 15 recite,
among other things, that the programming configuration comprises data,
software, or firmware to define an appearance or performance of a user
interface of a motor drive. Jeung discloses an embodiment in which the
transfer device 120 includes a motor identification module and a user
interface (e.g., a display) for looking up a motor in a motor identification
library. Jeung | 60. Moreover, Jeung discloses a test operation embodiment
in which a control system of a motor determines whether a control program
is optimal and includes a user interface (e.g., a visual indicator or audio
indicator) to prompt a user to start a test cycle when a suboptimal operation
parameter is detected. Id. 1 86. Thus, Jeung suggests data or software is
used to define the appearance (i.e., what a user sees) and/or performance
(i.e., the visual or audial output of information) of a user interface. In
addition, Jeung discloses that software stored in the motor can be transferred
to a target motor. Id. Tflf 42, 53. Thus, Jeung suggests that the software of a
motor, which may include the software controlling the appearance and/or
performance of a user interface, can be transferred to another motor, as
recited in claims 8 and 15.
Appellant also asserts the recitations of dependent claims 2, 9, and 17
have not been addressed by the Examiner and that Jeung and Royak do not
disclose or suggest transferring a programming configuration to motor drives
by adding to or replacing only a portion of the programming configuration,
as recited in claims 2, 9, and 17, because Jeung discloses a wholesale
9
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
transfer of data and Royak does not address data transfer. Appeal Br. 16—17;
Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds reciting that “only a portion” of the programming
configuration is added to or replaced does not avoid the § 103 rejection over
Jeung and Royak. Ans. 5. We agree. As discussed above, Appellant’s
Specification defines a programming configuration as including “any data,
software, or firmware that is used to define the performance of the drive 10,
the appearance or performance of the user interface of the drive 10, or the
performance or user interface appearance of any peripheral devices
communicatively coupled to the drive.” Spec. 119. If a programming
configuration includes data and software and one were to transfer and
replace all of the data available to a motor but not the software (Jeung
discloses transferring data and/or software (Jeung 1 53)), then one would be
replacing only a portion of the programming configuration, as recited in
claims 2, 9, and 17.
Moreover, we do not agree with Appellant’s assertion that Jeung is
directed to only a wholesale transfer of data. Jeung discloses the transfer of
data to a target motor includes “at least one of storing, erasing, writing,
overwriting, or replacing data and/or software on the target motor.” Id.
Storing data and/or software, for example, does not require overwriting or
replacing data already existing on the target motor, which is suggested by
Jeung’s disclosure of storing as an alternative to overwriting and replacing
data.
In view of the above, Appellant has not identified a reversible error in
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection. Appellant does not argue claims 3—7, 10—
14, 16, and 18—20 separately from claims 1, 8, and 15, they claims from
10
Appeal 2017-007725
Application 13/801,823
which they depend. Appeal Br. 5—17. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions
of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), claims 3-7, 10-14, 16, and 18-20 fall with
claims 1, 8, and 15.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—20.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
11