Ex Parte Isaksson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

13300056 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017)

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.
13/300,056 11/18/2011 Alf Isaksson 04189-P0074A 4252
131672 7590
Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
01/25/2017 EXAMINER
BELETE, BERHANU D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2017 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 ALF ISAKSSON
Appeal 2015-002738
Application 13/3 00,05 61
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral arguments on January 6, 2017. A transcript
of the hearing will be added to the record in due course.
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is ABB Research Ltd.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002738
Application 13/300,056
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to wireless communication in an
industrial automation context, including automatically generating time slot
allocation in one or more wirelessly enabled control loops which are
monitored and controlled by a process control system. Spec. |2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A computer implemented method for providing a time
slot allocation in a wireless communication schedule for
monitoring and control of a control loop in an industrial
process, said industrial process having at least one control task
and a plurality of wirelessly enabled field devices; characterized
by
importing dependency information between a plurality of
said field devices of at least one control loop from any of a
computer aided design file, a process and instrumentation
diagram in electronic file form, a process logic diagram in
electronic file form, a process and instrumentation diagram in
the form of an extended extensible markup language file, a
process graphic, a controller configuration in a control system,
and
allocating time slots in said communication schedule to
at least one of said field devices of the at least one control loop
dependent at least on a dependency information between the
plurality of said field devices
wherein said dependency information indicates whether a
control task requires as an input an output of one of said field
devices or control loops.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nixon et al. (US 2009/0059814 Al;
2
Appeal 2015-002738
Application 13/300,056
published Mar. 5, 2009) (hereinafter “Nixon”) and Pratt et al. (US
2008/0273486 Al; published Nov. 6, 2008) (hereinafter “Pratt”).
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether Nixon teaches or
suggests “dependency information” between field devices, in accordance
with claims 1, 14, and 24.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the combination of Nixon and Pratt, and Nixon in
particular, fails to teach or suggest “dependency information,” which,
according to the claim language, “indicates whether a control task requires
as an input an output of one of [the] field devices or control loops.” See,
e.g., App. Br. 8—13. Appellant further argues the Specification describes a
dependency as existing “in the sense that one control task in a controller may
require input from another control loon in order to complete a control task.”
App. Br. 9-10 (citing Spec. 1 53, Fig. 1 (arguing “a dependency exists in
control loop 21 because it requires input from both sensors SI, S2, as well as
control task C2”). As to Nixon, Appellant argues instead of teaching
dependency information, it teaches a graphical representation of a network
reflecting the relative distances between devices, rather than depicting
dependency information. App. Br. 11—12 (citing Nixon Fig. 10).
Furthermore, Appellant argues Nixon’s measurements of signal strength and
network performance, relied upon by the Examiner, do not “indicate whether
a control task requires as an input an output of one of [the] field devices or
control loops.” See Reply Br. 5—7 (citing Nixon || 16, 56, 101, Fig. 8).
3
Appeal 2015-002738
Application 13/300,056
The Examiner finds the combination, and Nixon in particular, teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 11—16; Adv. Act. 2. The
Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of “dependency
information” covers Nixon’s signal strength, time delay, and other network
performance measurements, which can be used to adjust routing between
field devices and scheduling of time slots. Ans. 12—13 (citing Nixon H 16,
61, 93, 100-07, Fig. 8); Adv. Act. 2.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We find the cited
portions of Nixon fail to teach or suggest the recited dependency
information. See, e.g., Spec. 1 53, claim 1; Nixon H 16, 56, 100-07, Figs. 8,
10. We disagree with the Examiner construing “dependency information” to
cover Nixon’s network performance measurements. Although “the PTO
must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification[,]. . . claims should always be read in light of the specification
and teachings in the underlying patent.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Microsoft Corp. v.
Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Appellant’s
Specification uses the phrase “dependency information” in terms of
information indicating whether a dependent device requires as an input an
output of another device. See Spec. 1 53; Fig. 1; claim 1. Although the cited
portions of Nixon teach paths between field devices, they fail to teach or
suggest dependency information in terms of information indicating whether
a dependent device requires as an input, an output of another device. Nixon
16, 61, 93, 100-07, Fig. 8. Additionally, we find the Examiner’s
reference to a multiplexer — which can pass various inputs rather than
teaching a chained dependent event — as being inapposite.
4
Appeal 2015-002738
Application 13/300,056
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
14, and 24, nor the remaining claims on appeal, each of which depend, at
least indirectly, from one of these independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24.
REVERSED
5