Ex Parte Gross

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

13310561 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/310,561
134603
ABB
7590
FILING DATE
12/02/2011
06/23/2016
C/O Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square, Ste. 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2013
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter GROSS
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1034193-000272 8345
EXAMINER
CHOU,ALANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
taft-ip-docket@taftlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER GROSS
Appeal2015-000171
Application 13/310,561
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000171
Application 13/310,561
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 6-10, and 12-16. Claims 2-5, 11, and 17-27 were canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "a distributed process system, which
exchanges data with a superordinate communication unit via an interface
and a communication connection in accordance with the IEC 61850
standard, and which is connected to a subordinate process via a further
interface and a station bus." (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. A remote terminal unit for integration and connection of a
slave process in a station control system, wherein the remote
terminal unit is configured to exchange data \'l1ith at least one
master communication unit, and is connected with the slave
process,
wherein the remote terminal unit comprises functional units
integrated in the remote terminal unit, the functional units being
interfaces for connecting the slave process to the at least one
master communication unit according to the IEC 61850 standard,
wherein the functional units include:
at least one IEC61850 server configured for connecting to
at least one master communication unit;
at least one IEC61850 client configured for connecting a
slave station level through a IEC61850 station bus;
1 Appellant identifies ABB Technology AG as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2015-000171
Application 13/310,561
at least one first unit implemented as a protocol gateway
and configured for connecting to the at least one master
communication unit and for connecting intelligent electronic
devices by means of additional network protocols; and
at least one second unit configured for directly wiring with
the slave process for connecting control and monitoring signals
to the IEC6 l 850 station bus, and
wherein the remote terminal unit comprises a configurable
filter function coordinating the data exchange between the
functional units.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hancock et al. US 2006/0052958 Al Mar. 9, 2006
Casebolt et al. US 2008/0101251 Al May 1, 2008
Kidwell et al. US 2009/0254655 Al Oct. 8, 2009
1Z "'.l1'1Pr1"'.l pf "'.l 1 TN ')(\ 1 1 /ffnr\-'\Q(\ A 1 n""" 'JO ')(\ 1 1 _.L'lr..._l,..l,_l__I_VU-U VL u_1_. \......./U "'-'V_l__I_/V-1"'-'V../JV .L.1.._1_ _L./V\o./e "'-'/' "'-'V _I_ _I_
Spanier et al. US 2012/0209552 Al Aug. 16, 2012
THE REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 1, 8-10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Casebolt, Kaneda, and Kidwell. (See Final
Act. 2-7.)
2 Claims 11 and 21-27 were rejected in the Final Action but were later
cancelled by Appellant. (See App. Br. 2.)
3
Appeal2015-000171
Application 13/310,561
2. Claims 7, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Casebolt, Kaneda, Kidwell, and Spanier. (See Final Act.
8-9.)
3. Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Casebolt, Kaneda, Kidwell, and Hancock. (See Final Act.
12-14.)
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION3
Appellant argues that the rejections were improper for the following
reason:
Casebolt, Kaneda, Kidwell and Hancock, either individually or
in combination, do not disclose or suggest the combination of the
four functional units comprised in the R TU of claim 1 as well as
the configurable filter function coordinating the data exchange
between the functional units, as recited in claim 1, for enabling
the R TU of claim 1 for integration and connection of a slave
process in a station control system, wherein the R TU is
configured to exchange data with at least one master
communication unit, and is connected with the slave process.
App. Br. 9.
ANALYSIS
Original claim 25 recited "a configurable filter function coordinating
the data exchange between the functional units." In the Final Action, the
Examiner found this limitation disclosed in paragraphs 5 and 17 of Hancock.
(See Final Act. 11.) Appellant amended claim 1 after the final rejection to
3 Because our resolution of this issue is dispositive, we do not reach
Appellant's additional contentions of error.
4
Appeal2015-000171
Application 13/310,561
add this feature4 and, on appeal, argues that the limitation is not met in
"Casebolt, Kaneda, Kidwell and Hancock, either individually or in
combination." (App. Br. 9.) The Examiner responded to this argument as
follows: "Casebolt teaches protocol identifier (see page 2 section [0012]) to
identify the message protocol types and using the protocol evaluation
apparatus 10a-10n to select frames and sub-divide message frames (see page
3 section [0031] and Figure 2), or filter message as claimed." (Ans. 4--5.)
We do not agree with the Examiner's analysis. The referenced
"protocol identifier" is the portion of Casebolt' s protocol evaluation
apparatus that determines whether a given message is of a particular protocol
such that it should be transmitted to the associated network device. (See
Casebolt i-f 12.) In the combination, the "protocol identifier" is a part of the
claimed gateway, serving to "open" the gateway for appropriate incoming
messages, not a "configurable filter function" that "coordinat[ es] the data
exchange between the functional units" within the claimed remote terminal
unit. We also fail to find such functionality in Hancock paragraphs 5 and 1 7
as applied by the Examiner. Paragraph 5 of Hancock merely lists the types
of devices found in the field of digital power monitoring and control,
observing that some may integrate features of others, while paragraph 17
details the IED/R TU' s interface with a slave process, descriptions that do
not relate to "coordinating the data exchange between the functional units,"
as claimed.
Because it has not been established that the combination teaches or
suggests that "the remote terminal unit comprises a configurable filter
4 See November 4, 2013 Amendment, entered November 18, 2013.
5
Appeal2015-000171
Application 13/310,561
function coordinating the data exchange between the functional units," we
do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 6-10, and 12-16.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6-10, and 12-16 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6