Ex Parte Heller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201612761791 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121761,791 04/16/2010 22116 7590 09/30/2016 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rainer Heller 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. 2009Pl4932US01 1987 EXAMINER LOPEZ ALVAREZ, OLVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2121 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2016 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAINER HELLER, VENKA TA PRASAD MUKKA, OSWIN NOETZELMANN, PRITHVI RAJU, DIRK SCHAUMBURG, and EDWARD SLAVIN Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 1 Technology Center 2100 Before, ERIC S. FRAHM, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-15 and 19-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to monitoring an automation system. See Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A method for monitoring an online automation system, compnsmg: displaying, on an electronic display device, a model of the automation system that was used to program a programmable logic controller in the automation system, the model includes a plurality of mechanical actions each representing a physical position of a resource of the online automation system and the model includes a mechanical step which visually represents a change between the physical positions; repeating over a period of time: receiving input effective to indicate an execution occurring at the programmable logic controller; and providing a visual representation on the electronic display device which represents the execution at the programmable logic controller in relation to the displayed model of the automation system, the visual representation based on the received input. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamashita et al. (US 6,859,898 Bl; Feb. 22, 2005) (hereinafter "Yamashita") and Takashi (EP 1 077 396 Al; Feb. 21, 2001). (2) The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, 14, 15, 19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zifferer (US 5,321,829; June 14, 1994), Takashi, and Siemens, SFCfor SIMATIC S7 Manual, (Nov. 2006) (hereinafter "Siemens"). 2 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 (3) The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zifferer, Takashi, Siemens, and Cocco (US 7,379,782 Bl; May 27, 2008). (4) The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zifferer, Takashi, Siemens, and Sakamoto (US 5,793,947; Aug. 11, 1998). (5) The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zifferer, Takashi, Siemens, and Bartling (US 2006/0226526 Al; Oct. 12, 2006). (6) The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zifferer, Takashi, Siemens, and Anderson et al. (US 2003/0217123 Al; Nov. 20, 2003). (7) The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zifferer, Takashi, Siemens, and Schmitt et al. (US 2002/0046397 Al; Apr. 18, 2002). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in ( 1) the May 16, 2014 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-31) and (2) the January 2, 2015 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3--47). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. 3 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 (1) Model of the automation system Appellants argue the combination of Yamashita and Takashi does not teach or suggest "a model of the automation system," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 4--5. Specifically, Appellants argue Yamashita instead teaches a sequential-functional-chart ("SFC"), which is a "standard programming language," rather than a model of the automation system. Id. (citing Yamashita Figs. 2, 18; 1: 10-34, 4: 1--49); see also Reply Br. 2 (arguing the Examiner "ignores that the model used to program the PLC is the same model being displayed after the programming to be used to describe the action of the PLC"). The Examiner finds the combination of Yamashita and Takashi teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 38--40; Final Act. 3. As to the claim language, the Examiner finds the term "model" as used in claim 1, and in light of the Specification, is broad and includes "'a description or analogy used to help visualize something'; 'an example for imitation or emulation'; [and] 'to construct or fashion in imitation of a particular model."' Ans. 39. The Examiner also finds the Specification explains a model of an automation system can include a mechanical sequence flow of resources and an electrical sequence flow for the resources. Ans. 37 (citing Spec. ii 39). The Examiner agrees with Appellants that SFC is a programming language used to program PLCs. Ans. 38. The Examiner finds, however, that SFC "uses object oriented functions or blocks to represent a model or program to be executed in a PLC." Id. at 39. Specifically, the Examiner finds "SFC functions are used to model the execution or desired steps to be followed for a machine (PLC) based on the programmed or selected steps, 4 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 and thus, ... a[] SFC diagram or program represents a model that represents the operation of a machine or system." Id. (citing Yamashita 1 :24--26). The Examiner then finds one skilled in the art would interpret Yamashita' s graphical description shown in Figures 2 and 18 to be a model of the system under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Ans. 40 (citing Yamashita Figs. 2, 18); see also Final Act. 3 (citing Yamashita Figs. 2, 18; 1:24--26, 4:1---68, 5:60---6:7). We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own. For example, we agree that the term "model" as used in claim 1 (i.e., "a model of the automation system that was used to program a programmable logic controller") is a broad term that covers the combination's teaching of SFC programs, and we find Yamashita' s SFC programs are models of the automation system used to program PLCs. See Yamashita Figs. 2, 18; 1 :24-- 26, 4:1-50, 5:60-6:7. We also disagree with Appellants' argument that the Examiner ignores that the model used to program the PLC is displayed. See, e.g., Final Act. 3 (citing Yamashita 2: 19-32 (providing displaying the SFC program, which can include indicating executed steps), Fig. 18 (showing SFC programs displayed on a screen); see also Ans. 5. Our reasoning and findings also apply to these same arguments Appellants raise with respect to ladder logic programs, including with respect to claim 21. (2) Mechanical actions and a change between physical positions Appellants argue the combination of Yamashita and Takashi fails to teach or suggests that "the model includes a plurality of mechanical actions each representing a physical position of a resource of the online automation system and the model includes a mechanical step which visually represents a 5 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 change between the physical positions," as recited in claim 1. As to Yamashita, Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not interpret Yamashita' s steps or transitions as representing a physical position of a resource or a change between physical positions. App. Br. 5. As to Takashi, Appellants argue its Figure 49 is a timing chart describing signals' state changes (e.g., on/off), and thus, it does not describe physical positions or changes in physical positions. See Reply Br. 2 (citing Takashi Fig. 49, i-fi-16- 7). Appellants also argue Takashi is directed to a different type of PLC programming. App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3 (arguing, inter alia, "interpreting the programming language ignores the specifics of the modeling in regards to the mechanical actions, physical positions and mechanical steps"). The Examiner finds the combination, and Takashi in particular, teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 40-42; Final Act. 5---6. Specifically, the Examiner finds Takashi teaches or suggests an automation model - which can comprise a mechanical and an electrical model - having mechanical actions (e.g., raising) representing physical positions (e.g., bottom) and corresponding steps (e.g., the raising of a cylinder from bottom to top) for changing between positions (e.g., bottom to top) such that the model "can be used by any programming language used for modeling automation system." Ans. 41; see also e.g., Ans. 5---6 (citing Takashi Figs. 9, 49), 40, 42 ("[A ]dding the timing diagram of Takashi to Yamashita would have help understand and determine exactly the current position and progress [of] execution of a chuck, or cylinders as shown in Fig. 49."); Final Act. 5-6. 6 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 We agree with the Examiner that the combination teaches the disputed limitation. For example, Takashi teaches mechanical actions representing physical positions and corresponding steps for changing between positions. See e.g., Takashi Fig. 49 (teaching or suggesting via the timing chart and corresponding action chart mechanical actions representing physical positions (e.g., open, close, top, bottom, front, and back) of a chuck, vertical cylinder, and horizontal cylinder, as well as visually representing these resources changing between physical positions). Appellants focus on the timing chart portion of Figure 49, while substantively ignoring the teachings of the corresponding action chart portion of the figure. See Reply Br. 2. (3) Combining Yamashita and Takashi Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combines Yamashita and Takashi because (i) combining Takashi's timing chart with Yamashita's teachings would change the principle operation of Yamashita; (ii) it is unclear how the teachings of Yamashita and Takashi would be combined; and (iii) the Examiner's reasoning for combining the teachings is conclusory. See App. Br. 5-7. Regarding changing Yamashita's principle of operation, Appellants argue "Takashi's timing chart is used for the creation of a ladder diagram which is then used for programming the PLC[, and t]hus, the timing chart is at a pre-programming stage," rather than being used for programming. App. Br. 6. As to how to combine, Appellants argue the Examiner does not explain how the teachings would be combined (e.g., "[h ]ow would Yamashita['s] SFC program be modified to include Takashi's timing chart?"; "[ w ]ould the timing chart display of Takashi replace the step display of Yamashita?"). See App. Br. 5-6; see also Reply Br. 3--4 (positing other 7 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 questions regarding how to combine). As to the motivation to combine, Appellants argue that "Takashi merely defines what an action chart and a timing chart are," and "describes how the action chart and timing chart are displayed," but "these definitions are not objective reasons to combine" the references. App. Br. 6 (citing Takashi i-fi-1 6, 7, 23). The Examiner finds "Takashi does not teach that the timing diagram was programmed in ladder language as suggested by the Appellant[s]," which was then used for programming the PLC. Ans. 41--42. The Examiner also finds "one skilled in the art ... would have the knowledge to implement the timing diagram with all its functions in any object[] oriented programming language to represent the progress execution of a program or model being executed." Id. Furthermore, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Yamashita to include Takashi's teaching of a model having mechanical actions, each representing a physical position of a resource, and steps, visually representing a change between physical positions, because doing so "would have help[ ed a user to] understand and determine exactly the current position and progress execution progress of a [resource]" (such as a chuck or cylinder) during program execution by a PLC. Ans. 43 (citing Takashi Fig. 49); Final Act. 5---6 (citing Takashi i-fi-1 6, 7, 23). We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own. For example, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Takashi's timing chart is used at a pre-programming stage. Additionally, we find Appellants' argument that the teachings of Yamashita and Takashi would not enable those skilled in the art to make the claimed invention unpersuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art would employ their 8 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 own inferences. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ("[T]he [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."); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."). In addition, we are not persuaded that combining Yamashita and Takashi in the manner proffered by the Examiner is "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). We also find the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Specifically, we see no error in the Examiner's reasoning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yamashita and Takashi to allow a user to understand and visualize the current position and execution progress of a resource during program execution. See Ans. 43; Final Act. 5---6. ( 4) Zi(ferer 's teachings Appellants contend Ziff erer does not teach or suggest "a model of the automation system" that was used to program a programmable logic controller in the automation system, in accordance with claims 1 and 15. See App. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants argue "Zifferer is not directed to creating the program but [instead to] importing a created program." Id. (citing Zifferer 1 :65-2:2; 6:40-45) (arguing Zifferer teaches a development system for monitoring imported ladder logic programs, and "is silent on a 9 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 model used to program the PLC (how the ladder logic programs are created)"). The Examiner finds the combination, and Zifferer in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 44--45. The Examiner first focuses on claim 1 's language and finds it requires neither "creating the program" nor "'teach[ing] how the ladder logic programs (the model) are created."' See Ans. 44. Rather, the Examiner finds claim 1 's language - "a model of the automation system that was used to program a PLC" - covers importing a model or displaying a model that was previously created. Ans. 45. The Examiner then finds Zifferer teaches or suggests "'monitoring ladder programs being executed in PLCs. "' Id. at 44 (citing Zifferer Figs. 3- 4, 3:5-10 and 4:5-20 (incorporating references further describing the developing and menu driven GUI interface to create models)). The Examiner also finds, in accordance with the above findings for SFC programs, that ladder logic programs are models in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Id. We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own. We agree "a model of the automation system that was used to program a PLC" covers importing a model, as well as displaying a model that was previously created. See e.g., Zifferer 1:65-2:2; 6:40-45 (describing importing ladder logic programs). Thus, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Our reasoning and findings also apply to these same arguments Appellants raise with respect to claim 21. Appellants also contend Ziff erer fails to teach or suggest "that the model includes a plurality of mechanical actions each representing a physical position of a resource of the online automation system and the 10 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 model includes a mechanical step which visually represents a change between the physical positions." App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner, however, relies on Takashi' s teachings for teaching or suggesting this limitation. See Ans. 45; Final Act. 9-10 (citing Takashi Fig. 49). As discussed above, we find Takashi discloses this disputed limitation. See supra; Takashi Fig. 49; see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding each reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole."). (4) Combining ZifJerer and Takashi Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combines Zifferer with Takashi because "there would be no motivation to change Zifferer to create the program." App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As discussed above, claim 1 's language is broader than Appellants assert, including covering importing previously created programs, and does not require creating a program. Furthermore, the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We see no error in the Examiner's reasoning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zifferer and Takashi to allow a user to understand and visualize the status of the internal function of the resources during program execution. See Final Act. 10. CONCLUSION Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 15, as well as the Examiner's rejection of claim 21. We also 11 Appeal2015-004400 Application 12/761,791 sustain the Examiner's rejections of the remaining claims on appeal because Appellants did not provide separate arguments for their patentability. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 and 19-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation