Ex Parte Huttelmaier et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201813032353 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/032,353 02/22/2011 Kelly Huttelmaier 10AB247-US-A 6709 70640 7590 02/01/2018 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC / SR Attn: Linda Kasulke 1201 S. 2nd Street E-7C19 Milwaukee, WI 53204 EXAMINER SHIAU, SHEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2018 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): s arah @ setterroche. com u spto @ setterroche .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 KELLY HUTTELMAIER, MICHAEL KELLER, and GREGORY W. MEARS Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,3531 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims 4 and 19 were canceled. App. Br. 17, 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,353 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ application relates to a software interface for configuring, controlling, and monitoring industrial automation control products (e.g., machines, such as pumps, drives, motors, robots, etc.). Spec. ]Hf 2-3. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method of controlling devices in a machine automation environment comprising: executing a primary software application to generate a primary graphical view comprising a graphical view of a first plurality of controls configured to operate a first device, wherein the primary software application is designed in a manner that allows integration of additional graphical views with the primary graphical view; executing the primary software application and a secondary software application to generate an integrated graphical view comprising a graphical view of the first plurality of controls and a second plurality of controls, the first and second pluralities of controls of the integrated graphical view configured to operate a second device, wherein the first plurality of controls and the second plurality of controls comprise distinct controls; displaying the primary graphical view for controlling the first device; and displaying, along with the primary graphical view, the integrated graphical view, wherein the integrated graphical view presents the first and second pluralities of controls for operating the second device as a single set of controls for operating the second device. 2 Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,353 The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 9, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4-6.2 Claims 9 and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 6—7. Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baier et al. (US 2009/0089225 Al; Apr. 2, 2009). Final Act. 7-16. ANALYSIS Written Description — Claims 1, 9, and 16 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as failing to satisfy the written description requirement because the Specification does not support the limitation “an integrated graphical view comprising a graphical view of the first plurality of controls and a second plurality of controls, the first and second pluralities of controls of the integrated graphical view configured to operate a second device.” Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds the Specification does not support a first and second plurality of controls that are distinct controls because Figure 3 and its corresponding description indicate that Mode 1 and Mode 2 from graphical display window 316 are the same Mode 1 and Mode 2 as integrated graphical display window 318. Ans. 2. The Examiner also finds the Specification does not support “the integrated graphical view presents the first and second pluralities of controls for operating the second device as a single set of controls for operating the 2 All references to the Examiner’s Final Action refer to the Final Action mailed on December 17, 2015. 3 Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,353 second device” because Mode 1 and Mode 2 can only operate the first device, not the second device. Ans. 3. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the Specification does not support a first and second plurality of distinct controls because the Specification describes graphical display window 316, which presents mode 1 and mode 2 as control options to a user. App. Br. 7-9. Appellants argue integrated graphical display window 318 separately presents modes 1,2, and 3 as control options to a user. Id. Appellants argue these graphical display windows are separate sets of controls. Id. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding the Specification does not support a “single set of controls for operating the second device” because integrated graphical display window 318 presents modes 1, 2, and 3 as a single set of options. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. The Specification describes graphical display window 316 enables a user to select between mode 1 and mode 2. Spec. 129. The Specification further describes integrated graphical display window 318 enables a user to select between modes 1, 2, and 3. Id.^ 37. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, the Specification states modes 1, 2, and 3 can each operate the new drive controlled by integrated graphical display window 318. Id. 136. In addition, Figure 3 displays graphical display window 316 as a separate, distinct graphical display from integrated graphical display window 318, supporting the limitation that the first and second pluralities of controls are separate, distinct controls. Figure 3 also displays modes 1, 2, and 3 as a single set of controls in integrated graphical display window 318. 4 Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,353 Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding the Specification does not support the disputed limitations. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s written description rejections of claims 9 and 16, which recite similar limitations and stand rejected for a similar rationale. Final Act. 5-6. Indefiniteness — Claims 9 and 16 The Examiner rejects independent claim 9 as indefinite because the claim language is “inconsistent with what is defined in the published specification.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner incorporates the findings regarding the written description rejection of claims 1 and 9 into the indefmiteness rejection. Ans. 4. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 as indefinite because the Specification supports the disputed written description limitations for the reasons discussed above. App. Br. 11. Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. For the reasons set forth above, we agree that the Specification supports the disputed limitations. Moreover, the Examiner has not explained how the claims are indefinite, as opposed to how the claims lack written description support in the Specification. Accordingly, we do not sustain the indefmiteness rejection of claim 9 or independent claim 16, which the Examiner rejected using the same rationale. Final Act. 6. Anticipation Rejections We have reviewed the Examiner’s anticipation rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) 5 Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,353 the findings and reasons regarding the anticipation rejections set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons regarding the anticipation rejections set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusions regarding the anticipation rejections. We highlight the following additional points. Claims 1, 9, 16 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Baier. App. Br. 13—14. Baier discloses customized visualizations of “mash-ups of display objects” that allow a user to leverage information from a variety of sources through a common interface. Baier 1 86. Appellants argue the mash-up interface may include multiple components, but the only disclosure of these components altering device parameters relates to increasing, decreasing, or halting conveyor motor speed. App. Br. 13 (citing Baier || 64, 136). According to Appellants, even if such components are considered a “first plurality of controls configured to operate a first device,” Baier fails to disclose a “second plurality of controls” in the cited interface components. App. Br. 14. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Baier discloses visualization system 4200 that includes interface component 4202, visualization component 4206, and workflow component 4208. Baier | 134. Regarding the visualization component, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Baier discloses a base presentation component that displays one or more elements of an industrial control environment. Ans. 4 (citing Baier | 52). The base presentation component facilitates viewing and interacting with data related to automation control devices, such as tanks, valves, pumps, and 6 Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,353 mixers (the claimed “first device”). Baier 1130. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Baier discloses display elements, such as widgets, can be superimposed on the base presentation component. Ans. 4 (citing Baier 1 69). These widgets may display various information, such as vibration analysis for a motor (the claimed “second device”). Baier || 120, 121, Fig. 30. Baier further discloses interface component 4202 is linked to visualization component 4206, allowing a user to modify the displayed automation device parameters. Baier 1136 (“By way of example[,] and not limitation, a conveyor motor speed could be increased, decreased[,] or halted.”) In other words, Baier discloses the various elements displayed by the visualization component, such as the various elements related to different devices in Figure 42, may accept user input as a mechanism for modifying device parameters. “‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (alterations in original) (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, Appellants’ argument that Baier only discloses modifying motor parameters is unpersuasive because an ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably infer from Baier’s disclosures identified above that a user could modify more than just the motor parameters in the disclosed embodiment. For instance, a user also could modify parameters associated with Baier’s automation control devices, such as tanks, valves, pumps, and mixers. 7 Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,353 For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Baier. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 9 and 16 and dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20, for which Appellants do not offer separate arguments (App. Br. 14). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 3, 11, 18 Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 further comprising: monitoring a status of the second device; selecting the secondary software application from a plurality of software applications based on the status of the second device; and integrating the status into the integrated graphical view.” Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 as anticipated by Baier. App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellants argue Baier does not teach the secondary software application is selected based on the status of a monitored device. Id. According to Appellants, “[ijnstead, at best, a mash-up object may be selected to display a desired status, but Baier fails to teach selected [sic] the object after monitoring the device based on its status.” Id. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Baier discloses widgets displaying information including “alarm services, network health, workflow applications,” and more. Baier | 86. Baier further discloses context component 104 can determine context information regarding a device and “employ such data in connection with deciding on which base presentations and or items to display as well as respective format and position.” Id. 1 65. In other words, Baier discloses deciding which base presentation to use to display information (“selecting the secondary software 8 Appeal 2017-005677 Application 13/032,353 application from a plurality of software applications”) based on context information about a device in the system (“status of the second device”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Baier discloses “selecting the secondary software application from a plurality of software applications based on the status of the second device,” as recited in claim 3. See Final Act. 9-10 (citing Baier 65-68, 86, 120). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 3. We also sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 11 and 18, which Appellants argue as a group with claim 3 (App. Br. 14). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting (1) claims 1, 9, and 16 as failing to comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; and (2) claims 9 and 16 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We, however, affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1- 3, 5-18, and 20 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Baier. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation