Ex Parte Keller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 7, 2017

13077552 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 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.
13/077,552 03/31/2011 Michael R. Keller 10AB247-US-B 5770
70640 7590 04/11/2017
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC / SR
Attn: Linda Kasulke
1201 S. 2nd Street
E-7C19
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/11/2017 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 MICHAEL R. KELLER,
GREGORY W. MEARS, and KELLY HUTTELMAIER
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 5—10, 12—16, and 18—22, i.e., all pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Rockwell Automation
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates “to the field of
machine automation control products.” Spec. 12.2 The Specification
explains that a machine automation system includes interface software
configured to receive a device selection, identify at least one device specific
menu item from a group of device specific menu items by querying each of
the device specific menu items with a characteristic of the selected device to
identify which of the device specific menu items should be displayed, and
display the device specific menu item in a control window. Abstract; see
Spec. 1 5.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having
program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a
configuration system for controlling a plurality of devices in a
machine automation environment, direct the configuration
system to:
receive a selection of at least one machine automation
device of the plurality of devices;
display a control window associated with the machine
automation device;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed March 31, 2011; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed April 24, 2015; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed July 2,
2015; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed January 4, 2016; “Ans.” for the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 20, 2016; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply
Brief, filed July 20, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
identify at least one standard menu item which is
compatible with the machine automation device and other
machine automation devices in the machine automation
environment;
query each of a plurality of device specific menu items
with a device type of the machine automation device, a status of
the machine automation device, and a status of the machine
automation environment to identify which of each of the
plurality of device specific menu items should be displayed,
wherein each device specific menu item includes information
relating to applicability of each device specific menu item to the
device type of the machine automation device, the status of the
machine automation device, and the status of the machine
automation environment; and
display the identified device specific menu items along
with the at least one standard menu item in the control window.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Porcari et al.
(“Porcari”)
US 2004/0025048 Al Feb. 5, 2004
Wolf et al.
(“Wolf’)
US 2004/0072611 Al Apr. 15,2004
Miura et al.
(“Miura”)
US 2007/0250793 Al Oct. 25, 2007
Baier et al.
(“Baier”)
US 2009/0089225 Al Apr. 2, 2009
Humpleman et al.
(“Humpleman”)
US 2010/0064227 Al Mar. 11,2010
Park US 2010/0315563 Al Dec. 16, 2010
3
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 19—21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baier, Miura, and Park. Final
Act. 2—7; App. Br. 7.
Claims 7, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baier, Miura, Park, and Wolf. Final Act. 7—8; App. Br. 7.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Baier, Miura, Park, and Humpleman. Final Act. 8—9; App. Br. 7.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baier, Miura, Park, and Porcari. Final Act. 9; App. Br. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 5—10, 12—16, and 18—22
in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons
explained below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding error by
the Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2—10), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and Answer (Ans. 2—8).
We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and
arguments.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12,
13, 15, 16, and 19—21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Querying Device-Specific Menu Items
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 because:
none of the art of record teaches or suggests querying each of a
plurality of device specific menu items with a device type of the
machine automation device, a status of the machine automation
device, and a status of the machine automation environment
4
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
to identify which of each of the plurality of device specific
menu items should be displayed, wherein each device specific
menu item includes information relating to the applicability of
each device specific menu item to the device type of the
machine automation device, the status of the machine
automation device, and the status of the machine automation
environment.
App. Br. 10; see Reply Br. 2—3; see also App. Br. 8—9.
In particular, Appellants contend that “Baier does not specifically
refer here to a device type of a machine automation device or a status of a
machine automation environment as recited in claim 1App. Br. 8.
Appellants contend that Miura “fails to teach or suggest that the criteria
stored with each menu item includes information relating to applicability of
each device specific menu item to the device type of the machine automation
device, the status of the machine automation device, and the status of the
machine automation environment.” Id. at 10. Appellants further contend
that Baier, Miura, and Park do not “specifically disclose identifying menu
items of any kind based on all three criteria recited in claim 1,” i.e., device
type, device status, and environment status. Id. at 8, 10-11.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error
because, as the Examiner notes, the contentions address the references
individually. Ans. 3. Where a rejection rests on a combination of
references, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, “the test for combining references is not what
the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination
of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the
5
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); see In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the combination of disclosures in Baier and Miura teaches or
suggests querying device-specific menu items according to claim 1. The
Examiner finds that Baier discloses identifying information to be displayed
based on device type, device status, and environment status. Final Act. 3,10
(citing Baier || 54, 55, 76, 77, 80, 126); see Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 2—3 (citing
Baier || 6, 76, 77, 80, 84, 117, 126, 136). For example, Baier discloses:
(1) determining “states of the system, [and] environment”; (2) capturing
“device data, [and] environment data”; (3) monitoring “conditions”
including “type of machinery, [and] state of system”; (4) determining “status
of device/equipment/system” and “machine operating state”; and
(5) obtaining “[r]eal-time data regarding relevant devices and/or equipment”
including “the operating status of the device/equipment,” e.g., “off, on, run.”
Baier || 54, 76, 80, 84, 117, 126. Baier also discloses dynamically adapting
a user interface based on various conditions, e.g., device type, device status,
and environment status. Id. || 6, 64, 76, 77, 84, 126, 136; see Ans. 2—3
(citing Baier || 76, 77, 84, 126, 136).
In addition, the Examiner finds that Miura discloses (1) a user-
customizable menu that permits the display of menu items based on their
respective contexts and (2) including with a menu item information for
determining its applicability to a particular context. Ans. 3^4 (citing Miura
|| 75-80, 142-144); see Final Act. 3^1 (citing Miura || 75-80, 142-144);
Adv. Act. 2. Miura explains that “menus are generated by creating a master
menu that has all potential menu items and then applying a display filter that
determines which menu items are to be displayed with the menu” and that
6
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
“[t]he display filter may be implemented as a program that determines which
menu items are to be displayed based on specified criteria,” including
“recognizing] what menu items are applicable to a particular context.”
Miura Tffl 142, 143. Miura also explains that “[t]he criteria for determining
whether a particular menu item is to be displayed may be stored with ... the
menu item . . . .” Id. 1144.
Consequently, the combination of disclosures in Baier and Miura
teaches or suggests that device type, device status, and environment status
provide the context for displaying a menu item, e.g., “type of machinery”
and “off, on, run” machinery status. Where a menu item’s display depends
on device type or device status (or both), the menu item constitutes a device­
specific menu item. In addition, the combination of disclosures teaches or
suggests including device type, device status, and environment status with
menu items.
Identifying a Standard Menu Item
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Miura does not teach or suggest “identify at least one standard menu item
which is compatible with the machine automation device and other machine
automation devices in the machine automation environment,” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue that Miura “fails to explicitly
teach or suggest” that any menu item corresponds to either (1) “a standard
menu item which is compatible” with multiple devices or (2) a device­
specific menu item. Id. According to Appellants, Miura “simply makes no
distinction between” a standard menu item and a device-specific menu item.
Id.
7
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that Miura discloses a default menu corresponding to a
standard menu that “may include menu items for functions that are common
. . . Final Act. 4 (citing Miura || 129, 130); Ans. 5 (citing Miura || 129,
130). Miura’s “menu items for functions that are common” correspond to
standard menu items. Miura’s disclosure comports with the Specification’s
explanation that “[standard menu items are menu items which are
applicable to multiple types of devices” or “applicable to multiple devices.”
Spec. ||40, 44. Further, the Examiner finds that Miura also discloses
context-sensitive menu items corresponding to device-specific menu items.
Final Act. 3^4 (citing Miura H 75—80, 142, 143); Ans. 3^4 (citing Miura
1175—80, 142, 143). Contrary to Appellants’ contention, Miura
distinguishes between standard menu items and device-specific menu items.
See Miura H 129, 130, 142, 143.
Displaying a Standard Menu Item
Along with a Device-Specific Menu Item
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
“none of the art of record teaches or suggests combining at least one
standard menu item with identified device specific menu items for display in
a control window, as required by claim 1.” App. Br. 11; see Reply Br. 4.
More specifically, Appellants assert that Park “fails to teach or suggest
displaying both device specific menu items along with at least one standard
menu item in a control menu.” App. Br. 11. Appellants concede that Park
discloses user selection of a control item from a control menu. Id. (citing
Park || 48, 61); see Reply Br. 2. But Appellants assert that Park does not
distinguish between standard menu items and device-specific menu items
8
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
and, therefore, fails to teach or suggest displaying both kinds of menu items
as required by claim 1. App. Br. 11.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as the Examiner notes, the assertions address the references individually.
Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that Park discloses “identifying and displaying
a menu associated with an external device.” Ans. 2, 7 (citing Park H 61,
62); see Final Act. 5, 10 (citing Park || 47, 61, 62, Fig. 4); Adv. Act. 2.
More particularly, Park teaches displaying a device-specific control menu
for an external device after a user selects the device from among multiple
devices. Park || 47, 60, 61, Figs. 3^4. Park also teaches that the device­
specific control menu includes “a plurality of control items.” Id. Tffl 48, 62.
Additionally, as discussed above, the Examiner finds that Miura discloses
(1) context-sensitive menu items corresponding to device-specific menu
items and (2) “menu items for functions that are common” corresponding to
standard menu items. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Miura Tflf 75—80, 129, 130, 142,
143); Ans. 3—4, 7 (citing Miura H 75—80, 129, 130, 142, 143); see App.
Br. 12 (citing Miura 1143). Accordingly, the combination of disclosures in
Park and Miura teaches or suggests displaying both kinds of menu items as
required by claim 1. In addition, we note that Miura discloses displaying
“menu items for functions that are common” along with context-sensitive
menu items. Miura H 129, 130.
Summary for Independent Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Baier, Miura, and Park. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
9
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
Independent Claims 10,16,20, and 21
and Dependent Claims 5, 6,8,13,15, and 19
Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments for
independent claims 10,16, 20, and 21 or dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 13, 15,
and 19. App. Br. 8—13; Reply Br. 2-4. Because Appellants do not argue the
claims separately, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16,
and 19—21 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Dependent Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and recites the following additional
steps:
identifying an alternative device specific menu item in
response to a change in the status of the machine automation
device;
loading the alternative device specific menu item;
removing the device specific menu item from the control
window; and
displaying the alternative device specific menu item in
the control window.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12
because (1) the cited portions of Miura describe a display filter configured to
determine menu items applicable to a particular context and (2) “applying a
display filter to determine which menu items should be displayed when a
user requests a menu fails to teach or suggest” claim 12’s limitations. App.
Br. 12 (citing Miura Tflf 142, 143). Appellants also argue that different menu
items appear in Miura based on a user’s selections rather than “a change in
the status of the machine automation device, as recited in claim 12.” Id.
at 13. According to Appellants, “Miura does not identify an alternative
10
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
device specific menu item to replace an initial device specific menu item
originally displayed in a control window, let alone identifying such an
alternative in response to a change in the status of the machine automation
device.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as the Examiner notes, the arguments address the references individually.
Ans. 7. As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Miura discloses a user-
customizable menu that permits the display of menu items based on their
respective contexts. Ans. 3—4, 8 (citing Miura || 75—80, 142, 143); see
Final Act. 3^4 (citing Miura || 75—80, 142, 143). As also discussed above,
the Examiner finds that Baier discloses identifying information to be
displayed based on device type, device status, and environment status. Final
Act. 3 (citing Baier || 54, 55, 76, 77, 80, 126); see Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 2—3, 8
(citing Baier || 6, 76, 77, 80, 84, 117, 126, 136). In addition, Baier
discloses dynamically adapting a user interface based on various conditions,
e.g., device type, device status, and environment status. Baier || 6, 64, 76,
77, 84, 126, 136; see Ans. 2—3 (citing Baier || 76, 77, 84, 126, 136). For
instance, Baier teaches interface customization based on information
“provided by automation devices,” such as “status of device . . . being
monitored.” Baier || 64, 76, 77, 80, 117, 136.
Consequently, the combination of disclosures in Baier and Miura
teaches or suggests that, when a first device changes status from on to off
and a second device changes status from off to on, the user interface
dynamically updates to remove menu items for the first device and replace
them with menu items for the second device.
11
Appeal 2016-007404
Application 13/077,552
The Rejections of Claims 7, 9, 14, 18, and 22 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
For the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 7, 9, 14, 18,
and 22 based in part on Baier, Miura, and Park, Appellants assert that each
claim is “allowable for at least the reasons presented” in support of the
associated independent claim. App. Br. 13—14. Appellants do not make any
separate patentability arguments for these dependent claims. Id. Because
Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the rejections of
claims 7, 9, 14, 18, and 22 for the same reasons as the associated
independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5—10, 12—16,
and 18—22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12