Ex Parte El-Ibiary

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

13938047 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
13/938,047 07/09/2013 Yehia M. El-Ibiary 05RE221-US-B/YOD/GRE
REEL
2781
42982 7590 01/18/2017
Rnrlcwe.11 Automation Tnr /FY
EXAMINER
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19
1201 South Second Street
IP, SHIK LUEN PAUL
Milwaukee, WI 53204 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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 YEHIA M. EL-IBIARY1
Appeal 2015-007062
Application 13/938,047
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection2 of
claims 21—40.3 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. (Appeal Brief, filed February 13, 2015 (“App. Br.”), 2.)
2 Final Office Action mailed July 2, 2014 (“Final Office Action,” cited as
“Final Act.”).
3 No Reply Brief has been filed.
Appeal 2015-007062
Application 13/938,047
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[cjontrol schemes . . . used to automate
electromechanical systems having . . . electrical rotating machines” “such as
pumps, conveyors, compressors, fans, and so forth[.]” (Spec, 4, 5.)4
Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A motor control system, comprising:
a motor drive component configured to drive a motor in
rotation for powering a load; and
an automation controller electrically coupled to the motor
drive component and configured to control operation of the
motor drive component;
wherein the automation controller is configured to
cooperate with the motor drive component for autonomous
control of the motor, and to report data to a remote control
component via a network, and wherein the motor drive
component and the automation controller are disposed in or on
a common housing with a motor rotor and motor stator.
(Claims Appendix, App. Br. 11.)
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Discenzo ’510 US 6,295,510 B1 Sept. 25,2001
Discenzo ’512 US 6,434,512 B1 Aug. 13,2002
4 Application 13/938,047, Motor Drive Having Integral Programmable
Logic Controller, filed July 9, 2013. We refer to the “’047 Specification,”
which we cite as “Spec.”
2
Appeal 2015-007062
Application 13/938,047
REJECTION
Claims 21—40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Discenzo ’510 or Discenzo ’512. (Final Act. 2.)
OPINION
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner finds that “a motor driver
component” recited in claim 21 is disclosed by “motor 30” in Discenzo ’510
(and Discenzo ’512) which “is depicted [as] driving a load 32 through a
shaft coupling.” (Discenzo ’510, Figs. 1, 4a-4d, 6:48—51; Discenzo ’512,
Figs. 1, 4a-4d, 6:24—26 (cited in Ans. 5—6).)
Appellant argues that neither Discenzo ’510 nor Discenzo ’512
discloses a “motor control system” having “a motor driver component” as
recited in claim 21.5 (App. Br. 6.)6 Appellant argues that component 30 in
Discenzo ’510 (and Discenzo ’512) cited by the Examiner is “the motor
itself’ and therefore patentably distinguishable from “a motor driver
component” as recited in claim 21. (App. Br. 6.)
“Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their
limitations are shown in a single prior art reference.” In re Skvorecz, 580
F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Examiner carries the initial burden to
5 Appellant does not make separate arguments for claims 22-40 (App. Br. 6—
10) and they therefore stand or fall with claim 21. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
6 Appellant collectively refers to Discenzo ’510 and Discenzo ’512 as “the
Discenzo references.” (App. Br. 5.) While Appellant also refers to the
“Discenzo reference” (singular) throughout the Appeal Brief, Appellant does
not specify whether the reference is Discenzo ’510 or Discenzo ’512.
3
Appeal 2015-007062
Application 13/938,047
show a prima facie case of anticipation. See In re Antor Media Corp., 689
F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Here, claim 21 requires a motor control system comprising, inter alia,
“a motor drive component configured to drive a motor rotation for powering
a load[.]” Although the claim does not specify the structure of the motor
drive component, the ’047 Specification describes controller 70 as a
“motor/drive” component. (See, e.g., Spec. 123.) Consistent with such
description in the Specification, Appellant also identifies that “motor/drive”
controller 70 in the Specification is an example of the “motor drive
component” recited in claim 21. (App. Br. 3; Ans. 5—6.)7 Appellants do not
identify any other components described in the Specification as a motor
drive component. (See App. Br. generally.)
The ’047 Specification additionally provides that “motor/drive”
controller 70 may “be redundant to” programmable logic controller (“PLC”)
12 so that “if either the PLCs or the motor/drive controllers fail, then the
remaining one performs the control functions.” (Spec. H 14, 23.) That is,
controller 70 and PLC 12 may perform redundant control functions. (See
id.) The ’047 Specification provides that such “control functions”
performed by PLC 12 or controller 70 may include adjustments of “the
current, voltage, speed, acceleration, cooling systems (e.g., fan speed or
coolant flow rate), or other parameters of the motor system.” (Id. 115.) For
example, PCL 12 may be a “small computer[] configured to automate
control of the motors/drives 18” and “if the PLC 12 provides a control signal
to reduce the current and, thus, speed of the motor/drive 18, then the PLC 12
may also transmit similar commands to PLCs 14 and 16” which are
7 Examiner’s Answer mailed May 8, 2015 (“Ans.”).
4
Appeal 2015-007062
Application 13/938,047
configured to automate control of other respective motors/drivers. (Id. ||
14,21.)
Neither Appellant nor the Examiner presents their respective
interpretations of the claim term. In light of the ’047 Specification, we
interpret “a motor drive component configured to drive a motor in rotation
for powering a load” as recited in claim 21 to mean a controller configured
to adjust a power input to a motor in the manner described in the
Specification.
The Examiner fmdse that the Discenzo references disclose “a motor
drive component (30).” (Ans. 4—5 (citing Discenzo ’510, Figs 2 & 4a); see
also Final Act. 2—3.) The Examiner then elaborates that the Discenzo
references disclose a “motor 30 with the motor drive component” but does
not specify what this particular component of motor 30 might be. (Ans. 6.)
The Examiner further indicates that the prior art motor 30 includes “a
plurality of sensors 61 and power is provided to the motor via power lines
128[.]” (See Ans. 8 (citing Discenzo ’512 8:53—54, Figures 1, 2, and 4a—
4d).) However, the Examiner does not demonstrate that the Discenzo
references teach a controller configured to adjust a power input to a motor,
i.e., the “motor drive component” recited in claim 21. Id. We therefore
find that the evidence provided by the Examiner on this record is insufficient
to show the “motor drive component” recited in claim 21.
Appellant next argues that the Discenzo references do not disclose
“an automation controller” as recited in claim 21. (App. Br. 6—8.) Appellant
argues neither “docking station 60” nor “diagnostic module 50” in the
Discenzo references has any control function and has “nothing in common”
with an automation controller. (Id.)
5
Appeal 2015-007062
Application 13/938,047
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant identifies PLC 12 as one example of
“an automation controller” recited in claim 21. (App. Br. 3; Spec. 123.)
Claim 21, as it is currently written, requires that the “automation controller”
is “configured to control operation of the motor drive component.” That is,
claim 21 requires PLC 12 to control the operation of controller 70.
While the Examiner finds that the prior art docking station 60 and
diagnostic module 50 form a network control component for machinery data
collection (Final Act 2—3 & Ans. 8—9 (citing Discenzo ’512, 10:24—63)), the
Examiner has not made a prima facie case showing of “an automation
controller” (i.e., PLC 12) “configured to control operation of the motor drive
component” (i.e. controller 70).
Given that we find the evidence presented by the Examiner
insufficient to show these claim limitations, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—40 is reversed.
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)(l)(iv).
REVERSED
6