Ex Parte Farchmin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2014

10675535 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2014)

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.
10/675,535 09/30/2003 David W. Farchmin 110003.00051.03AB206 6083
7590 04/24/2014
Susan M. Donahue
Rockwell Automation, Inc. 704-P
1201 South Second Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
NORTON, JENNIFER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID W. FARCHMIN
____________

Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-23, 25-46, 48-54, 56-60, and 62-69. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
In reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments that
Appellant actually raised. Arguments that Appellant did not make are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).

Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to wireless location based systems in an
automated industrial environment. See generally Spec., 1. Claim 1 is
exemplary:
1. An apparatus for use in an automated environment
including at least a first automated assembly including a
plurality of components that facilitate an automated process, at
least one portable wireless information device (WID) and a
controller for controlling the assembly, the apparatus
comprising:
a first component that is one of the plurality of
components and that is linked to the controller to facilitate at
least a sub-process associated with the automated process,
the first component including at least a first wireless
receiver for receiving wireless signals from the at least one
WID; and
a processor receiving signals from the first receiver and
running location determining software for determining the
location of the at least one WID as a function of the signals
received there from;
wherein the first component is a stationary human-
machine interface (HMI) device including at least one of an
input device for receiving input directly from a human user of
the HMI and a display for providing information directly to a
human user of the interface device.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11-23, 25, 26, 28-33, 35-42, 44, 48, 50, 51, 54,
56-60 and 62-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over De Meyer (U.S. 2005/0021158 A1).
Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535

3
Claims 4, 6, 10, 27, 34, 43, 45, 46, 49, 52 and 53 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over De Meyer, and Rogers (U.S.
2003/0234741A1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
De Meyer and Luebke (U.S. 2004/0235468 A1).
ISSUES
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding the
following claim limitations are obvious over De Meyer:
(1) “the first component including at least a first wireless receiver” and
“the first component is a stationary human-machine interface
(HMI) device including at least one of an input device for
receiving input directly from a human user of the HMI and a
display for providing information directly to a human user of the
interface device” as recited in claim 1; and

(2) “the WID . . . transmits signal strength data to the at least one
receiver and the at least a second processor obtains the signal
strength data from the at least one receiver and uses the obtained
data to determine WID position” as recited in claim 66?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[W]hen the prior art teaches away from combining certain known
elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely
to be nonobvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)
(citation omitted).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535

4
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
“[The] mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away”
and “just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that
an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes. In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citations omitted).
“Although a reference that teaches away is a significant factor to be
considered in determining unobviousness, the nature of the teaching is
highly relevant, and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious
composition does not become patentable simply because it has been
described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In
re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-23, 25-46, 48-54, 56-60, and 62-65
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Appellant asserts contrary to the claim requirements, De Meyer does
not teach or even remotely suggest the wireless receivers could have been
included in stationary interface devices, and the interface devices also
include at least one of an input device and a display. See App. Br. 10-12;
see also Reply Br. 0-1. Appellant contends one skilled in the art would have
been motivated to provide a system with a stationary interface and a separate
stationary access point instead. See App. Br. 11. Appellant argue De Meyer
teaches away because its invention replaces a stationary HMI. See App. Br.
11; Reply Br. 1.
Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535

5
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br.
0-1), and agree with the Examiner’s conclusions. We adopt the Examiner’s
reasoning and findings on pages 5-6 and 43-46 of the Answer as our own.
Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following points of emphasis.
It is undisputed De Meyer’s “Field of and Background of the
Invention” section teaches “a stationary human-machine interface (HMI)
device including at least one of an input device for receiving input directly
from a human user of the HMI and a display for providing information
directly to a human user of the interface device” (“Stationary HMI”), which
is known in the art. De Meyer [0003]-[0005]; see also Ans. 5-6; App. Br.
10. The Examiner correctly finds De Meyer also teaches a wireless receiver,
which is also known in the art. See Ans. 5; De Meyer [0025]-[0026].
Therefore, combining the Stationary HMI with the wireless receiver—both
of which are known in the art—would have predictably used prior art
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). As a result,
the claimed limitations “the first component including at least a first wireless
receiver” and “the first component is a stationary human-machine interface
(HMI) device including at least one of an input device for receiving input
directly from a human user of the HMI and a display for providing
information directly to a human user of the interface device” are obvious
over De Meyer.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because “[t]he obviousness
analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words
teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance
of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR, 550
Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535

6
U.S. at 419. Further, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. And “when a patent
‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417.
Appellant’s teaching away argument is equally unpersuasive because
“[a] known or obvious composition [or system] does not become patentable
simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other
product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In Gurley, the court held the invention would have been obvious by
combining Yamaguchi and other prior art because “[e]ven reading
Yamaguchi’s description as discouraging use of epoxy for this purpose,
Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known to the art.” Id.
Similar to Gurley, De Meyer states stationary HMIs have drawbacks and
therefore, somewhat inferior. See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553; De Meyer [0006].
Similar to Gurley, De Meyer also teaches stationary HMIs are usable and
have been used in an automated industrial environment. See Gurley, 27 F.3d
at 553; De Meyer [0003]-[0005]. Further, De Meyer’s mild language does
not constitute discouraging the use of stationary HMIs. Nor does De Meyer
teach stationary HMIs “should not” or “cannot” be combined with wireless
receivers. Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1334. Therefore, the disputed claim
limitations are obvious because Appellant “asserted no discovery beyond
what was known to the art.” Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553.
Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535

7
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 23, 31, 37, 40, 54, and 64 for the same reason, and corresponding
dependent claims that Appellant does not separately argue, or Appellant
argues should be allowed for the same or similar reason as claim 1.

Claims 66-69
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 66.
Appellant asserts contrary to the claim requirements, De Meyer does
not teach or suggest transmitting signal strength data from any device to
another device. See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 1. Appellant contends De
Meyer fails to teach or suggest a second processor that uses signal strength
data transmitted to it by a WID to ascertain the WID location, or a WID
transmitting signal strength data to a second processor, so that the second
processor can use the signal strength data to determine WID location. See
App. Br. 13. Appellant asserts the Examiner should not combine the
teachings of two De Meyer methods for the obviousness analysis. See App.
Br. 14.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br.
1), and agree with the Examiner’s conclusions. We adopt the Examiner’s
reasoning and findings on pages 28-30 and 47-49 of the Answer as our own.
Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following points of emphasis.
It is undisputed De Meyer teaches a wireless information device
(WID) (mapped to De Meyer’s [mobile control and monitoring module]
MU), at least one receiver (mapped to De Meyer’s receiving devices), and at
Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535

8
least a second processor (mapped to De Meyer’s communications module or
the central server). See Ans. 28, 48.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner correctly finds [a
device] transmits signal strength data to [a receiving device] is taught by or
obvious over De Meyer. See Ans. 47-49; De Meyer [0076] (“MU receives
and analyzes, in a first step, short-range fields so as to determine the position
of the module MU. These short-range fields are, in particular, emission
signals of neighboring HMI communications modules. In FIG. 8, these
emission signals are, for example, emission signals AP5S, AP6S of the third
and fourth HMI communications module AP5, AP6, in particular field
strengths emitted therefrom.”). Therefore, the claim limitation “the WID . . .
transmits signal strength signals to the at least one receiver” is obvious over
De Meyer. Combining the teachings of De Meyer would have predictably
used prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
The Examiner also correctly finds De Meyer teaches the at least a
second processor (mapped to De Meyer’s communications module or the
central server) obtains [ ] data from the at least one receiver (mapped to De
Meyer’s receiving devices) and uses the obtained data to determine WID
(mapped to De Meyer’s MU) position. See Ans. 48; De Meyer [0077]. As
discussed above, De Meyer teaches the claim element signal strength data.
Therefore, in light of De Meyer’s teachings, the claim limitation “the at least
a second processor obtains the signal strength data from the at least one
receiver and uses the obtained data to determine WID position” is obvious.
Combining the teachings of De Meyer would have predictably used prior art
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
Appeal 2011-005697
Application 10/675,535

9
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Because the Examiner rejected the claim under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner does not need to find all of the teachings in a
single De Meyer embodiment.
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 66, and corresponding
dependent claims that Appellant does not separately argue.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-23, 25-46, 48-54, 56-
60, and 62-69 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

ke