Ex Parte Engel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2011

10005580 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GLENN R. ENGEL
___________

Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 4-15. Claims 1-3 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appellant’s invention relates to a data collection node that has
interfaces for receiving signals from a sensor and for connecting to a
computer network. (Spec. Abstract.) A controller connects to the computer
network, generates data based on sensor measurements and communicates
the data to the server via the computer network. (Spec. Abstract.)
Claim 4 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
4. A data collection node comprising:
an interface for receiving signals from a sensor;
an interface for connecting said data collection node to a
computer network; and
a controller for generating data based on measurements of said
received signals and communicating that data to a server via said
computer network,
wherein said controller communicates said data via HTTP and
wherein said controller receives data from said server that
determines a measurement to be made by said controller and
commands from a user at a location remote from said node, said
commands altering a measurement made by said controller.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Rogers (U.S. Patent No. 6,405,111) and Gallagher (U.S. Patent No.
6,104,875).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Rogers and Fuselier (U.S. Patent No. 6,920,495).
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Rogers and Fletcher (U.S. Patent No. 6,085,243).
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

3
Claims 8-10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Rogers and Hemphill (U.S. Patent No. 6,490,617).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Rogers, Hemphill and Fuselier.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Rogers, Hemphill and Fletcher.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Rogers, Hemphill and Gallagher.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 6-8) that the
combination of Rogers and Gallagher would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 4, including the disputed limitation “commands from a
user at a location remote from said node, said commands altering a
measurement made by said controller.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Rogers does not teach this disputed
limitation and cited Gallagher for the disclosure of process sensor
packages 20, 20’ that generate signals passed to a remote field device
controller 30. (Ans. 4; Gallagher, col. 4, ll. 15-29, 43-48.) The Examiner
concluded that independent claim 4 would have been obvious. (Ans. 4-5.)
We agree with the Examiner.
Rogers describes a “computerized automotive service equipment
system . . . adapted to access remotely located computer systems to retrieve
or exchange data and/or software applications.” (Abstract.) The automotive
service equipment system includes a data input controller 200, a
measurement device 210 and a networked controller 220. (Col. 8, ll. 12-13;
fig. 4.) The data input controller 200 receives data from the measurement
device 210 (e.g., angle sensors for a wheel alignment application). (Col. 8,
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

4
ll. 26-29.) The data input controller 200 can also access a networked
controller 220 (col. 8, ll. 65 to col. 9, l. 9) to acquire vehicle diagnostic
specifications (col. 9, ll. 56-59). The network connection between the data
input controller 200 and the networked controller 220 can be a HTTP
network protocol. (Col. 9, ll. 11-13.)
Gallagher describes a method “for altering in the field the operating
instructions used by an industrial process transmitter to collect, manipulate
and transmit output signals representing the state of an industrial process.”
(Abstract.) A process transmitter includes process sensor packages 20, 20’,
a field device controller 30 and a process signal translation device 40 such
that the process sensor packages 20, 20’ can be remotely located. (Col. 4,
ll. 17-25.) The field device controller 30 includes programmed instructions
to control the process sensor packages 20, 20’ with an algorithm routine
(e.g., calculating a corrected pressure by factoring in the temperature of a
process medium). (Col. 4, ll. 43-50.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have recognized that incorporating the known field device controller 30 of
Gallagher, including the process sensor packages 20, 20’, with the
computerized automotive service equipment system of Rogers would
improve Rogers by providing the ability to remotely control and provide
algorithm routines to the measurement device 210. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 4-5) that modifying Rogers to include the field device controller 30 of
Gallagher would have been obvious.
Appellant argues that “the embodiment shown in Figure 5 does not
satisfy the limitations that the controller receives the signals from the sensors
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

5
and communicates that data to the server via HTTP.” (Br. 7.) However, the
Examiner cited to the embodiment of Figure 4 rather than the embodiment
of Figure 5 to reject independent claim 4. (Ans. 3-4, 12.)
Appellant further argues that “Gallagher teaches the programming of
a field controller that controls a process by connecting a programming
device locally to the computer in the controller and downloading new code
into the microprocessor” but “Gallagher does not teach that the new code
alters any measurements made by the local microprocessor with respect to
the sensors attached thereto.” (Br. 7.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments,
Gallagher describes that the process sensor packages 20, 20’ can be used to
monitor pressure (col. 4, ll. 25-29) and that programming instructions loaded
in a field device controller 30 “can calculate the corrected pressure by
factoring in the temperature of the process medium” (col. 4, ll. 43-48).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Rogers and Gallagher would have rendered obvious independent claim 4,
including the disputed limitation “commands from a user at a location
remote from said node, said commands altering a measurement made by said
controller.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 9) that the
combination of Rogers and Fuselier would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 5, including the disputed limitation “wherein said
controller communicates with said server via a proxy server on said
computer network.”
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

6
The Examiner acknowledged that Rogers does not teach this disputed
limitation (Ans. 5) and cited Fuselier for the disclosure of a Web server 402
including proxy servers to forward valid requests and queries through a
firewall (Ans. 5-6; Fuselier, col. 15, l. 56 to col. 16, l. 2). The Examiner
concluded that independent claim 5 would have been obvious. (Ans. 5-6.)
We agree with the Examiner.
As discussed previously, Rogers describes a computerized automotive
service equipment system (Abstract) such that the network connection
between the data input controller 200 and the networked controller 220 can
be a HTTP network protocol (col. 9, ll. 11-13).
Fuselier describes “methods for facilitating Web-based information
exchange within an organization.” (Col. 1, ll. 23-24.) In one embodiment,
authorized remote computers can access a Web server 402 through a security
firewall by using a proxy server “through which all communications with
computers outside the intranet must take place.” (Col. 15, ll. 56-66.) The
proxy server is “programmed to validate queries from a user on any machine
authorized to communicate with the Intranet via a remote terminal 416.”
(Col. 15, l. 66 to col. 16, l. 2.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have recognized that incorporating the known proxy server of Fuselier with
the computerized automotive service equipment system of Rogers would
improve Rogers by providing the benefit of preventing unauthorized access
of the network connection between the data input controller 200 and the
networked controller 220. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 5-6) that modifying Rogers to include the proxy server
of Fuselier would have been obvious.
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

7
Appellant argues that “a proxy server does not provide any benefit
beyond that provided by the access control system already on the server”
because “the shops are required to pay for the services offered by the server,
and hence, the user must subscribe to the server” and “[t]ypically, a
password and conventional data encryption is sufficient.” (Br. 9.) However,
Appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence to support these alleged
facts. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported
objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Rogers and Fuselier would have rendered obvious independent claim 5,
including the disputed limitation “wherein said controller communicates
with said server via a proxy server on said computer network.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 10-11) that the
combination of Rogers and Fletcher would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 6, including the disputed limitation “a clock for
generating time readings that are included with data that is communicated to
said server.” We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 11-
12) that the combination of Rogers and Fletcher would not have rendered
obvious dependent claim 7, including “wherein said clock is set via a
message received from said server.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Rogers does not teach these two
disputed limitations (Ans. 6, 7) and cited Fletcher for the disclosure of time-
stamping packets captured at a proxy that sends time synchronization/poll
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

8
messages (Ans. 6-7; Fletcher, col. 10, ll. 2-11.) The Examiner concluded the
claims 6 and 7 would have been obvious. (Ans. 6-7.) We agree with the
Examiner.
As discussed previously, Rogers describes a computerized automotive
service equipment system (Abstract) including a data input controller 200
that can access a networked controller 220 (col. 8, l. 65 to col. 9, l. 9) to
acquire vehicle diagnostic specifications (col. 9, ll. 56-59).
Fletcher describes “transmission of information between multiple
digital devices on a network.” (Col. 1, ll. 16-17.) Fletcher also describes
that “[t]o facilitate proper time-based ordering of captured packets at the
Proxy and to ensure that statistics are placed into the proper time period
buckets, statistics and packets coming from the Agents are time-stamped.”
(Col. 10, ll. 2-5.) In addition, “the Proxy sends out an AMP [Adaptor
Management Protocol] time synchronization/poll message every five
seconds to assist in aligning the Agents clocks with its own.” (Col. 10, ll. 9-
11.)
The combination of Rogers and Fletcher is nothing more than
incorporating a known method of time-stamping packets and sending
synchronization/poll messages, as taught by Fletcher, with the known
method of transmitting data from the data input controller 200 and the
networked controller 220, as taught by Rogers, to yield predictable results.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7) that
modifying Rogers to include the time-stamping and sending
synchronization/poll messaging of Fletcher would have been obvious.
Appellant argues that “there is no reason to provide a clock and time
stamp on the data” because “Rogers teaches sending data to the server for
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

9
processing the data, but does not teach that the server stores the data after the
server processes the data.” (Br. 10.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments,
Rogers discloses that “[w]heel alignment, engine analysis, brake testing,
wheel balancing and the like can all be performed in a shop environment on
a ‘pay-per-use’ basis, wherein a remote server permits the use of vehicle
diagnostic software, and keeps account of the number of times such software
is used by a particular shop.” (Col. 11, ll. 20-26.) In other words, the
remote server would store the number of times the vehicle diagnostic
software is used for billing purposes.
Appellant also argues that “the servers taught in Rogers are general
purpose computers that have their own clocks, and hence, can provide time
stamps corresponding to the time the data is received” that “provide the
benefits suggested by the Examiner without the cost of duplicating the
clocks at the service nodes and assuring that all of the docks are
synchronized.” (Br. 11.) However, Appellant has not provided any
persuasive evidence to support these alleged facts. Again, arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See,
e.g., Huang, 100 F.3d at 139-140.
Appellant further argues that “there would be no reason, even if a
clock were provided at the local automotive shop site and used to time stamp
data sent from that shop, for the clock to be reset according to a remote
server” because Rogers does not teach “a system in which multiple
measurements must be coordinated with one another.” (Br. 11.) Contrary to
Appellant’s arguments, and as discussed previously, Rogers discloses use of
the vehicle diagnostic on a “pay-per-use” basis. (Col. 11, ll. 20-26.) In
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

10
other words, the remote server would need to coordinate the number of times
the vehicle diagnostic software is used.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Rogers and Fuselier would have rendered obvious independent claim 6,
including the disputed limitation “a clock for generating time readings that
are included with data that is communicated to said server.” We also agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Rogers and Fuselier would have
rendered obvious dependent claim 7, including the disputed limitation
“wherein said clock is set via a message received from said server.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 6 and
dependent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 12-13) that the
combination of Rogers and Hemphill would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 8, including the disputed limitations “causing said server
to provide a web page for accessing data generated by said controller in
response to receiving a registration message from said controller” and
“causing said controller to send a message to said server containing data
generated by said controller after said controller sends said registration
message.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Rogers does not teach these
disputed limitations (Ans. 7-8) and cited Hemphill for the disclosure of a
management server 102 that accesses management data from a Hyper-Media
Managed Device (HMMD) 110 and controls the device using Internet
technology. (Ans. 8; Hemphill, col. 5, ll. 3-5.) The Examiner concluded
that independent claim 8 would have been obvious. (Ans. 8.) We agree
with the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

11
As discussed previously, Rogers describes a computerized automotive
service equipment system (Abstract) such that the network connection
between the data input controller 200 and the networked controller 220 can
be a HTTP network protocol (col. 9, ll. 11-13).
Hemphill describes “a method and system for active self discovery of
devices that participate in a network” (col. 1, ll. 7-9) such that “one or more
managed devices each include an active discovery agent which initiates
management of the corresponding managed device by sending management
information to the management server using the server address” (col. 2, ll. 1-
5). A management network 100 includes a management server 102 and
managed elements 104 (col. 4, ll. 2-3), in which the managed elements 104
can be web-enabled devices or Hyper-Media Managed Devices
(HMMDs) 110 (col. 4, ll. 18-21). “The management server 102 accesses
management data from the HMMDs 110 and controls those devices using
Internet technology.” (Col. 5, ll. 3-5.)
The combination of Rogers and Hemphill is nothing more than
incorporating a known method of initiating management of a web-enabled
managed device by sending management information to the management
server 102, as taught by Hemphill, with the known method of computerized
diagnosis of automotive service equipment, as taught by Rogers, to yield
predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Such a modification would
result in a web-enabled data input controller 200 that initiates management
by sending the networked controller 220 management information. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that modifying Rogers to include
initiating management of a web-enabled managed device by sending
Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

12
management information to the management server, as taught by Hemphill,
would have been obvious.
Appellant argues that “the passages cited [of Hemphill] relate to the
communication of management data, such as device address and status not
to any measurement data based on signals received from a sensor within the
node.” (Br. 13.) However, the Examiner cited to Rogers for the disclosure
of signals received from a sensor within the node (Ans. 7, 24-25), rather than
Hemphill.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Rogers and Hemphill would have rendered obvious independent claim 8,
including the disputed limitations “causing said server to provide a web page
for accessing data generated by said controller in response to receiving a
registration message from said controller” and “causing said controller to
send a message to said server containing data generated by said controller
after said controller sends said registration message.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 9, 10 and 15 depend from independent claim 8 and
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 8.
With respect to dependent claims 11-14, Appellant merely argues that
the additional cited references do not cure the deficiencies of Rogers and
Hemphill. (Br. 13-16.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 8, from which claims 11-14 depend.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 11-14.

Appeal 2009-006323
Application 10/005,580

13
DECISION
The decision to reject claims 4-15 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc