Ex Parte Janssen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201812096973 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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. 12/096,973 10/27/2008 Dirk Janssen 190322/US 6841 25763 7590 02/02/2018 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - MINNEAPOLIS ATTENTION: PATENT PROSECUTION DOCKETING DEPARTMENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PRACTICE GROUP - PT/16TH EL 50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, SUITE 1500 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1498 EXAMINER PREVAL, LIONEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2018 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): ip. docket @ dorsey .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DIRK JANSSEN and HANS BECKHOFF Appeal 2016-007713 Application 12/096,973 Technology Center 2400 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-007713 Application 12/096,973 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—40. App. Br. 4.2 Claims 1—20 have been canceled. Oral arguments were heard on January 18, 2018. A transcript of the hearing will be placed in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to cyclical data transmission in a communication network, such as those used in industrial-automation control tasks. See Spec. 7, Abstract. According to Appellants, the invention improves real-time data transmission for performing rapid control tasks. Spec. 9. In one embodiment, nodes represent peripheral machine devices. Id. These nodes exchange data using telegrams. Id. at 10. A control unit cyclically and continuously outputs these telegrams over a transmission cycle. Id. In particular, the control unit subdivides the transmission cycle into subcycles having the same length and transmits at least one communication telegram in each subcycle. Id. A first node communicates with a downstream node by writing data into the communication telegrams. Id. By subdividing the transmission cycle in this way, Appellants explain 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Beckhoff Automation GmbH. App. Br. ii. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”) mailed May 7, 2015; (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed October 20, 2015; (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 9, 2016; and (4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 9, 2016. 2 Appeal 2016-007713 Application 12/096,973 that a control unit with a transmission-cycle clock in the millisecond range can carry out control tasks in the microsecond range. Id. Claim 21 is reproduced below with our emphasis on the limitation at issue: 21. A method for transmitting data on a ring-shaped transmission path to which a control unit and several nodes are connected, permission to output discrete telegrams to the communication path being given to the control unit and not the nodes, the control unit cyclically outputting data in the form of telegrams to the transmission path, and controlling the transmission process in order to continuously output telegrams during an entire transmission cycle time taking a transmission standard into account, the method comprising the steps of: the nodes exchanging data using the telegrams when passing therethrough, wherein the control unit subdivides a transmission cycle into a number of subcycles having the same length, the control unit transmitting at least one communication telegram in each subcycle into which a first node writes in data for a second node located downstream in the transmission path into the communication telegram when passing through, the second node reading out the data written into the at least one communication telegram when passing through, the control unit transmitting at least one further telegram, the further telegram being any of a data telegram for the nodes and a placeholder telegram for filling up the subcycle. App. Br. A1 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTION The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Zumsteg et al. US 2005/0129037 A1 June 16, 2005 Balasubramanian US 7,339,948 B2 Mar. 4, 2008 3 Appeal 2016-007713 Application 12/096,973 Kopetz et al., Specification of the TTP/A-Protocol V2.00 (Sept. 2002) (“Kopetz”). Claims 21—40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zumsteg, Kopetz, and Balasubramanian. Final Act. 2—25. ANALYSIS Of the rejected claims, claims 21, 29, and 37 are independent. Claims 21 and 29 recite, in part, “the control unit subdivides a transmission cycle into a number of subcycles having the same length.” Claim 37 recites a similar subdividing function involving a “processing unit.” In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds that Zumsteg’s control unit subdivides the transmission cycle. Final Act. 4—5, 13, 22. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that Zumsteg incorporates Kopetz’s TTP/A3 Protocol Specification and Kopetz also teaches this feature. See id. In particular, the Examiner finds that Zumsteg’s time-division multiple access (TDMA) and Kopetz’s transport protocols are relevant. Id. (citing Zumsteg 133; Kopetz 2-6). The Examiner, however, finds that Zumsteg and Kopetz do not teach filling up the subcycle with a placeholder telegram, as recited. Final Act. 5—6, 14—15, 23. For this limitation, the Examiner relies upon Balasubramanian in concluding that the claims would have been obvious. Id. In the “Response to Argument” section of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner, however, finds that Balasubramanian teaches the recited 3 ttp/A stands for Time Triggered Protocol/A. Zumsteg | 5. 4 Appeal 2016-007713 Application 12/096,973 transmission-cycle subdivision. Ans. 8. In particular, the Examiner quotes passages from Balasubramanian regarding portions of the I/O cycles. Id. (quoting Balasubramanian 5:11—14, 5:29-32). Appellants argue the cited references lack a control unit that subdivides the transmission cycle into a number of subcycles having the same length. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 10-11. According to Appellants, Kopetz and Zumsteg teach data frames with different sizes. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 10-11. Appellants further argue that Balasubramanian shows unowned frames and empty time slots having different sizes. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 10—11. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 14) that the Examiner has not shown that the cited references teach or suggest subdividing “a transmission cycle into a number of subcycles having the same length,” as recited in all independent claims. Because this issue is dispositive regarding the Examiner’s error in rejecting these claims, we need not address Appellants’ other arguments. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner does not expressly state which element in Zumsteg or Kopetz corresponds to the recited transmission cycle or how the control unit subdivides the cycles into subcycles. Final Act. 4—5, 13, 22. Instead, the Examiner refers to Zumsteg’s use of TDMA and Kopetz’s use of other transport protocols. See id. Apart from these citations, the Examiner does not otherwise reference or discuss any of the protocols’ features that relate to the recited cycle. See id. Nevertheless, the rejections are based on the TTP/A protocol’s file operations described in Zumsteg and Kopetz. See Final Act. 4—5, 13, 22. The file operations include a multi-partner (MP) round for communicating 5 Appeal 2016-007713 Application 12/096,973 time-sensitive information, such as control data. See Kopetz 2-6, 2-11. The Examiner discusses the MP round in connection with the recited subcycle. Final Act. 5 (citing Kopetz 2-11). Appellants point out that Kopetz teaches that the MP round’s data frames can have different sizes. App. Br. 14. We agree. For example, Kopetz teaches that a master node outputs a firework frame, which can be followed by data frames. Kopetz 2-11. Kopetz illustrates this example in Figure 2-4, which is reproduced below. :i;v ai'jnr:".:; < ;.':s:vmv sisfii li'Sesiii WOXWNXWNXWa JXOXOXOXWNXOXW&1 byte 4 'byte 5 ' >. .litvik PspiM; ' -i Stfsclsre af MP muasU Kopetz’s Figure 2-4 (above) shows a firework frame followed by one data frame having three bytes and another having two bytes. See id. Fig. 2-4. Moreover, the MP round, as a whole, is used to communicate a variable amount of data up to 64 bytes. Id. at 2-11; see also id. at 2-24. The Examiner, however, has not provided an adequate rationale why any of the subdivisions here are equal. See Final Act. 4—5, 13, 22. On this record, we agree that the Examiner has not shown that Zumsteg and Kopetz subdivide transmission cycles into at least some number of equal subcycles. See id. The Examiner’s alternative analysis of Balasubramanian is deficient for similar reasons. Ans. 8. Apart from quoting Balasubramanian, the Examiner does not expressly identify a feature corresponding to the subcycle. Id. To the extent that the Examiner regards Balasubramanian’s I/O-cycle portions as the recited subcycles, the record does not support the Examiner’s 6 Appeal 2016-007713 Application 12/096,973 finding that the portions are equal subdivisions. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 10—11. In the relied-upon teachings, Balasubramanian discloses an I/O cycle 34 divided into an owned portion 40 and an unowned portion 42. Balasubramanian 5:29-32, cited in Ans. 8; see also Balasubramanian Fig. 3. Notably, Figure 3 uses differently sized areas to represent these portions. See Balasubramanian Fig. 3, discussed in Reply Br. 10—11. Although patent drawings may not define exact proportions when the description is silent on this issue, Figure 3 certainly does not support the Examiner’s position. Here, the Examiner has not discussed anything else that tends to show that a number of these cycle portions are equal subdivisions. Ans. 8. Rather, the Examiner provides only quotations from Balasubramanian. Id. Moreover, the Examiner does not explain how Balasubramanian modifies Zumsteg-Kopetz to obtain the recited subdivision. Id. Nor does the Examiner articulate a rationale for doing so. Id. Given this record, Examiner has not shown that Balasubramanian, alone or in combination with Zumsteg and Kopetz, equally subdivides the I/O- cycle portions. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 29, and 37, and the rejection of dependent claims 22—28, 30—36, and 38—40, for similar reasons. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21—40. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation