Ex Parte Johansen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201310590260 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2013) 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. 10/590,260 08/18/2006 John A. Johansen FMCE-P145 6093 7590 09/13/2013 Henry C Query Jr 504 S Pierce Avenue Wheaton, IL 60187 EXAMINER LEE, CHUN KUAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2181 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2013 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 JOHN A. JOHANSEN, and VIDAR STEN-HALVORSEN ____________ Appeal 2011-005246 Application 10/590,260 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, GLENN J. PERRY, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005246 Application 10/590,260 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17 and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ invention is described as a control system for a subsea installation that communicates using the CAN protocol. See generally Abstract and spec page 6. Figure 2 of the application, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment of the invention. Application Figure 2 The application describes that figure 2 is a schematic drawing of a cable backbone bus for use in a system according to the invention. Spec. Brief Description of Drawings. A cable bus backbone includes a plurality of cable sections (40a – 40g) which carry signals and power between a control module 14 and various individually addressable devices (e.g. sensor 62 and electro-hydraulic pod 80). Various junctions (e.g. 50c, 50d and 50e) allow devices to be connected to the cable bus via branch cables that connect to the junctions. See generally Abstract and Spec, 5-9. Claim 16 is illustrative and is reproduced below. Appeal 2011-005246 Application 10/590,260 3 16. A control system for a subsea installation which comprises: a control module; a common bus which is connected to the control module and which comprises at least one cable unit; and a plurality of devices which are each removably connectable to the cable unit; wherein each one of the devices comprises a bus controller having a unique address; wherein the control module comprises means for communicating with each one of the devices over the common bus; wherein said cable unit comprises a junction and a plurality of branch cables, each of the plurality of branch cables comprising a first end which is connected to the junction, a second end which is connected to a corresponding electrical connector that in turn is removably connectable to one of the devices, and at least two control signal supply cables which each extend between said first and second ends and are connected to said junction and said corresponding electrical connector; and wherein said control signal supply cables are directly electrically connected to each other at said corresponding electrical connector. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“APAA”); Sitte (US Patent No. 5,469,150); and Suganuma (US Patent 7,349,479 B2). Ans. 3.1 The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over APAA, Sitte and Longsdorf (US Patent 6,006,338). Ans. 7. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Amended Appeal Brief filed October 4, 2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 24, 2010 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed January 24, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2011-005246 Application 10/590,260 4 OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 16-17 The Examiner finds that APAA describes a control module and a plurality of devices connected to the control module. Ans. 4. This finding is not contested. The Examiner also finds that Sitte teaches a common bus connected to control module, a common bus including a cable unit, and a plurality of devices that are removably connected to cable unit. Ans. 4-6. At least some of the devices have a bus controller and are uniquely addressable. Id. 4. A control module communicates with devices over the common bus. Id. 4-5. Sitte describes a cable unit and junctions. Id. 5-6. Sitte’s cable unit comprises a plurality of branch cables. Id. 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner is incorrect about the teachings of Sitte. According to the Appellants, Sitte does not teach a plurality of devices each connectable to a cable unit having a junction and each comprising a bus controller having a unique address. App. Br. 6. We disagree. Sitte Fig. 1, reproduced below, shows a control module 12 which provides control signals to various devices via a common bus 10. Appeal 2011-005246 Application 10/590,260 5 Sitte Figure 1 According to Sitte, figure 1 illustrates an exemplary sensor actuator bus incorporating concepts of the invention. Sitte 6:44-45. Devices (e.g. 14, 21, 16, 27, 18, 19, 34, 22, 26 and 29) are coupled to common bus 10 via junctions (e.g. 15, 25, 17 and 20). At least some of the devices are smart devices that have a microprocessor that is individually addressable by the control module 12. See Sitte Fig. 5 and 3:24-28. Appellants argue that Sitte element 20, referred to by the Examiner as a “junction,” has devices connected to it that are not individually addressable. App. Br. 6. Sitte element 20 was specifically noted by the Examiner as a “junction.” Other junctions include elements 15, 17 and 25. There are numerous “smart” devices attached to common bus 10 that are indeed individually addressable. See. e.g. devices 27, 18 and 19. Sitte Fig. Appeal 2011-005246 Application 10/590,260 6 6 is an example of a “smart” photoelectric device” connected to a two-wire bus. Sitte Fig. 8 is an example of a temperature sensitive device 500 that communicates with a controller using the CAN protocol. From these examples and others, we conclude that Sitte teaches individually addressable devices are connected through junctions to a common bus. According to the Appellants, Sitte does not teach a cable unit having branch cables each connected between junction and corresponding electrical connector that is removably connectable to one of the devices. App. Br. 6. We disagree. Sitte describes connecting to bus 10 through a “T-connector” which is configured to permit the cable to be “quickly” connected to the bus 10. Sitte 8:15-18. Sitte further describes how devices are disconnected and connected by “merely breaking a connection between a cable segment of the bus and an associated T-connector and inserting an additional cable segment and an additional T-connector in series with the original sensor actuator bus.” Sitte 17:24-33. We find that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the claimed invention would have understood Sitte to be describing the use of some sort of connector to make and break connections, add cable sections, etc. Appellants argue that Sitte does not teach a cable unit having a plurality of branch cables which each include at least two control signal cables. App. Br. 6. We are not persuaded by this argument. Sitte specifically describes “a two-wire communication bus system” at 8:61. Sitte throughout its text refers to the use of the “CAN protocol.” See e.g. Sitte 2:64-67, 3:24-4:12, 5:35-6:25. The CAN protocol is a two-wire protocol and is the same protocol described in Appellant’s specification embodiments. Furthermore, Suganuma teaches the use of the CAN protocol Appeal 2011-005246 Application 10/590,260 7 and two control signal cables. See e.g. Suganuma Fig. 1 “CAN-H” and “CAN-L.” Suganuma refers to “a two-wire communications line 13 including a H line 11 and a L line 12.” Suganuma 4:33-35. Appellants argue that Sitte does not disclose that each “branch cable” includes a “second end” connected to an electrical connector that is removably connectable to the device. App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded. The Examiner properly finds that Sitte discloses a removably connectable cable unit from Sitte’s discussion that devices can be added, replaced and removed. Sitte 17:24-33. For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Appellants argue with respect to claim 17 that the cables Sitte uses to connect devices 22, 26, 30 and 34 to junction 20 do not include two control signal supply cables. As stated above, we do not limit “junction” to only device 20. As stated above, Sitte teaches the use of CAN protocol with wiring appropriate to that protocol. We are not persuaded of Examiner error as to claim 17. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 19 Claim 19 is not argued with particularity. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings with respect to Longsdorf. Appellants repeat the arguments made with respect to Sitte as applied to claims 16 and 17. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19. Appeal 2011-005246 Application 10/590,260 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 16-17 and 19 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16-17 and 19 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation