Ex Parte Jundt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2003

08527886 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 40
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LARRY O. JUNDT
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 23 and 48 through 73. In the
Examiner's Answer (page 4) the examiner withdraws the rejection
of claims 1 through 23 and 48 through 73 as being based upon a
defective reissue declaration and of claims 9 through 14, 17, 23,
52 through 60, 69, and 70 as being obvious over Cromwell.
Accordingly, all rejections of claims 1 through 23 have been
withdrawn, and only claims 48 through 73 remain before us on
appeal.
Appellant's invention relates to a process control terminal
which displays process control function information and
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
2
application function information on separate portions of a
display screen such that the process control function information
cannot be overwritten by the application information. Claim 48
is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
48. A process control terminal for allowing an operator to
perform process control functions and application functions in
addition to the process control functions, the process control
terminal reserving a screen portion for process control
information to avoid a possibility that process control alarms
will not appear on the screen and thus not be brought to the
attention of the a process control operator, the process control
terminal comprising:
a processor;
a bus connected to the processor;
a display terminal connected to the bus, the display
terminal having a screen;
a process control network controller connected to the bus
for allowing process control information to be received from a
process controller;
a host network controller connected to the bus for allowing
application information to be received from a host computer and
for allowing application information to be transmitted to a host
computer;
means for periodically determining the existence of an alarm
condition based upon the process control information; and
means for causing process control information and
application information to be displayed on the screen, the
process control information including an alarm indication
generated in response to the determining of the existence of an
alarm condition and displayed on a predetermined portion of the
screen, the process control information and the application
information being displayed in a controlled manner so that
application information displayed on the screen does not
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
3
overwrite the alarm indication displayed on the predetermined
portion of the screen so as to interfere with a process control
operator's ability to monitor the alarm indication and thereby
observe an occurrence of the alarm condition.
No prior art references of record are relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims.
Claims 48 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as
claiming an invention different from that disclosed in the
original patent.
Claims 48 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being non-enabled by the disclosure.
Claims 48 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as the specification as originally filed fails
to provide support for the invention as is now claimed.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 32,
mailed May 5, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 27,
filed February 4, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 34, filed June
28, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims and the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we will reverse all of the rejections
of claims 48 through 73.
The examiner (Answer, page 5) states that:
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
4
The original invention disclosed a process control
terminal wherein means are provided for preventing
application data from overwriting process control data
by dedicating two fixed display screen portions for
both application and process control data thereby
preventing the different types of data from overwriting
one another. The reissue application claims to
eliminate the need for a screen portions [sic, portion]
to be fixed and dedicated by now allowing the different
types of data to share the same screen portions and
then preventing them from sharing the same screen area.
The examiner continues that "the original specification clearly
sets forth two predetermined screen portions for preventing
interference between application and process data."
Claims 60 and 61 recite that the process control information
is displayed on "a first predetermined portion" and the process
control information and the application information are displayed
on "separate portions." These recitations suggest to us that the
two types of information do not share the same screen portions,
but, rather, are displayed on separate predetermined screen
portions.
Likewise, claim 69 recites "a first portion of the display
screen reserved for the alarm indication" and application
information being displayed "in portions of the display screen
other than the first portion." Again, the process control data
and the application data are in separate predetermined portions
of the screen. Similarly, claim 73 recites first and second
portions and a step of "keeping said first portion of said
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
5
display screen separate from said second portion of said display
screen." Thus, the two portions are separate.
Claims 67 and 68 recite that the process control information
is to be displayed in a process control window "reserved
exclusively" for process control information. If one portion is
"reserved exclusively," then the two types of information are
displayed in separate and predetermined portions of the screen.
Accordingly, claims 60, 61, 67 through 69, and 73 all recite in
one form or another that the two types of information are
displayed separately, or, rather, that the two display portions
are "dedicated." Therefore, claims 60, 61, 67 through 69, and
73, and their dependents, claims 62 through 65, include the
limitations of the original claims found by the examiner to be
lacking in the present claims. Consequently, we find that claims
60 through 65, 67 through 69, and 73 claim the same invention as
that disclosed in the original patent.
As to the remaining claims, appellant points out (Brief,
pages 9 and 10) that independent claim 6, as granted, recites an
alarm indication is "to be displayed only in a first
predetermined portion of said display means" and application
information is to be displayed in a second predetermined portion
of the display means to prevent process control information from
being overwritten by the application information. "Claim 6 does
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
6
not require, however, that the first and second predetermined
portions of the display means be mutually exclusive." Thus,
appellant concludes that the claims are directed to the same
subject matter as the original claims.
We agree that original claim 6 does not require dedicating
two fixed display screen portions for both application and
process control data. Original claim 6 recites two predetermined
portions wherein the process control data portion is displayed
only in one of the predetermined portions. However, nothing in
claim 6 precludes the application data from also being in the
first predetermined portion, except for the recitation that the
application data is to be displayed to prevent process control
information from being overwritten by the application
information.
Claim 48 recites "reserving a screen portion," and claim 72
recites "reserving a predetermined screen portion," for the
process control information. Claims 52, 58, 59, 66, and 71 each
recite that the alarm indication is displayed on a "first
predetermined portion" (for claims 52 and 66) or merely on a
"predetermined portion" (for claims 58, 59, and 71). Then, each
of claims 48, 52, 58, 59, 66, 71, and 72 recites displaying the
application information such that it does not overwrite or bury
the alarm indication displayed or cause the alarm indication to
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
7
disappear and thereby interfere with a process control operator's
ability to monitor the alarm indication. In other words, like
claim 6, process control information is displayed in a
predetermined portion and the application data is displayed in
such a way that process control information is not overwritten.
Consequently, we find that claims 48, 52, 58, 59, 66, 71, 72, and
the claims dependent therefrom, claims 49 through 51 and 53
through 57 claim the same invention as that disclosed in the
original patent.
Claim 70 differs slightly from the claims discussed above in
that the alarm indication is displayed on "a first portion,"
which is not specified as "a predetermined portion." Then, like
claim 6, the application information is displayed such that the
alarm indication does not disappear from the display screen and
thereby interfere with a process control operator's ability to
monitor the alarm indication. Whether the first portion is
"predetermined" or not, the invention is in the display of the
application information such that the alarm indication is kept
from disappearing from the screen, which is the same in claim 70
as it is in claim 6. Therefore, claim 70 is directed to the same
invention as that disclosed in the original patent.
Regarding the enablement rejection of claims 48 through 73,
the examiner states (Answer, page 7) that the specification is
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
8
enabling only for claims 1 through 23 "limited to displaying in
two exclusive predetermined screen portions." As we have
determined, supra, that claims 60 through 65, 67 through 69, and
73 are limited to displaying in two separate predetermined screen
portions, for which the examiner admits the specification is
enabling, claims 60 through 65, 67 through 69, and 73 must also
be enabled by the specification. Additionally, as we have
determined, supra, that claims 48 through 59, 66, and 70 through
72 claim the same invention as that of claim 6, which the
examiner includes in the group of claims that are enabled by the
specification, we likewise find enablement for these claims.
Hence, we cannot sustain the enablement rejection of claims 48
through 73.
The new matter rejection of claims 48 through 73 must fall
for substantially the same reasons as above. Specifically, since
claims 48 through 73 claim the same invention as that disclosed
in the original patent, they clearly have not added new matter.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the new matter rejection of claims
48 through 73.
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
9
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 48 through 73
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 251 and 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
10
KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
THE KINNEY & LANGE BUILDING
312 SOUTH THIRD STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002