Ex Parte Daily et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 2, 201813664305 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2018) 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. 13/664,305 10/30/2012 Gordon Daily 2012P-030-US3 (ALBR:0501) 1678 42982 7590 01/04/2018 Rnrlcwe.11 Automation Tnr /FY EXAMINER Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19 1201 South Second Street PARK, JOHN C Milwaukee, WI 53204 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2125 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2018 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 GORDON DAILY, KEVIN CARL SMITH, and MATTHEW R. ERICSSON Appeal 2017-006705 Application 13/664,3051 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—24, which constitute all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-006705 Application 13/664,305 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to error detection and diagnostics evaluation in an industrial automation system utilizing a human machine interface (HMI). Abstract; || 2—6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 1. A system, comprising: a human machine interface (HMI) configured to provide visualizations of one or more device elements that correspond to one or more components in an industrial automation system on an HMI screen, wherein the HMI comprises computer-executable instructions stored on a tangible machine-readable medium configured to: determine whether at least one of the device elements is associated with an error; and modify at least one graphic that corresponds to the at least one of the device elements when the one of the device elements is associated with the error by changing a pattern of a line that corresponds to an outline of the at least one graphic. App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1—8 and 10—24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Drees (US 2011/0178977 Al; pub. July 21, 2011) (“Drees”). Final Act. 4—13. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1—8 and 10—24 because the Examiner does not present a prima facie case required for anticipation. App. Br. 5—16; Reply Br. 2—12. In particular, Appellants argue Drees does not describe the claimed invention and the Examiner’s reliance on Windows or Mac technology is improper. Id. 2 Appeal 2017-006705 Application 13/664,305 According to Appellants, “the Examiner failed to indicate how Windows or Mac teaches the recitations of at least claims 8, 11, 19, and 23” and “[wjithout providing any details or citing to any references indicating how Windows or Mac teaches or suggests the recitations of at least claims 1, 8, 11, 19, and 23, Appellants cannot sufficiently respond to the assertions presented by the Examiner in the Final Office Action.” App. Br. 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. §1.104(c)(2); M.P.E.P § 707.07). Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue Drees does not describe the claim 1 limitation modify at least one graphic that corresponds to the at least one of the device elements when the one of the device elements is associated with the error by changing a pattern of a line that corresponds to an outline of the at least one graphic. Id. at 7. According to Appellants, Drees “never mentions changing a pattern of a line used to outline a graphic” and the Examiner improperly relies on Windows for this feature without citing any reference indicating these features were known prior to the filing of the application. Id. at 7—8 (citing Drees 1 88). Appellants further argue, assuming arguendo, such a reference were cited, “adding an error sign is not the same as changing a pattern of a line that corresponds to an outline of a graphic that corresponds to a device element, as generally recited in claim 1” and “[in]contrast, adding an error sign makes no changes to the pattern of a line of an outline of a graphic.” Id. at 8. Referring to the Advisory Action, Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Drees describes changing a pattern of a line that corresponds to an outline of a graphic by causing an indication of a most likely fault cause to be displayed and pushing this data to a dashboard by displaying key 3 Appeal 2017-006705 Application 13/664,305 performance indicators (KPI). Id. (citing Advisory Act. 2; Drees 5, 62). According to Appellants: displaying an indication of a fault cause and providing data to a dashboard for displaying KPIs does not involve changing the pattern of a line of the dashboard, much less changing the pattern of a line that outlines a graphic representing a component in an industrial automation system. In contrast, Drees merely mentions generating visual elements, such as charts or histograms, but never mentions altering a pattern of a line outlining a graphic representing a component. Id. The Examiner finds Drees discloses the disputed claim 1 limitations: modify at least one graphic that corresponds to the at least one of the device elements when the one of the device elements is associated with the error ("causing an indication of the most likely fault cause to be displayed on an electronic display in communication with the computer ")(Paragraph 0005 of Drees)("Monitoring and reporting applications 120 can then access the data or be pushed the data so that real time "system health" dashboards can be viewed and navigated by a user (e.g., a building engineer). For example, monitoring and reporting applications 120 may include a web- based monitoring application that includes several graphical user interface (GUI) elements (e.g., widgets, dashboard controls, windows, etc.) for displaying key performance indicators (KPI) or other information to users of a GUI using FDD layer 114 information or analyses. ")(Paragraph 0062 of Drees) by changing a pattern of line that corresponds to an outline of the at least one graphic (Whenever typical error sign is placed on the any graphical representation of device, a pattern of a line that corresponds to an outline of the at least one graphic is changed). Final Act. 4—5. (Emphasis added for clarity of claim limitations). 4 Appeal 2017-006705 Application 13/664,305 In the Answer, the Examiner additionally finds Drees teaches a Graphical user interface (GUI) is a visual way of interacting with a computer using windows, icons, and menus, used in operating systems, such as Windows. Ans. 16—17. In particular, the Examiner finds: Placing icon or graphical representation that depicts exclamation point or question mark icon with yellow or red background is common way to indicate error or failure. Drees teaches fault detection with GUI. Displaying error message in graphical representation is inherent in such system. Therefore, Drees anticipates claim 1. Applicant further argues that Drees fails to teach changing a pattern of a line that corresponds to an outline of the at least one graphic. Examiner disagrees. Whenever typical error sign is placed on the any graphical representation of device, a pattern of a line that corresponds to an outline of the at least one graphic is changed. Therefore, Drees anticipates claim 1. Id. at 17. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue: the Examiner is not providing the Appellants an effective way to respond to the Examiner's assertion without providing a citation that the Appellants can review and compare with respect to the pending claims. For example, assuming, arguendo, that the Windows or Mac machines taught the recitations of certain claims, as asserted by the Examiner, the Appellants cannot effectively determine whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the Windows or Mac technology with the cited reference to render the claims obvious or anticipated without reviewing the cited reference. Furthermore, the Appellants cannot determine whether the Windows or Mac technology was available only after the filing date of the present application without reviewing a dated publication that describes the Windows or Mac technology that the Examiner relies on. Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as, based on the record before us, the Examiner’s findings do not present a prima facie case as 5 Appeal 2017-006705 Application 13/664,305 required for anticipation. In particular, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence showing Drees describes the disputed limitation as required for anticipation. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior-art reference, and arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, despite specific arguments and requests from Appellants, the information presented (and relied upon) by the Examiner regarding Windows and Mac is insufficient regarding the disputed claim limitation. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). The notice requirement is set forth by 35 U.S.C. § 132 and is not met on the current record. [T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in “notify[ing] the applicant... [by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132. That section “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1990). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In view of the above, and on the record2 before us, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and independent claims 8 and 19 which are argued together with claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—7, 10-18, and 20-24. 2 We note the rejection before us is solely based on 35 U.S.C § 102(a). 6 Appeal 2017-006705 Application 13/664,305 Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitations is dispositive of the rejections, we do not address additional arguments raised by Appellants. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—8 and 10—24 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a). REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation