Ex Parte Krauskopf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

14032017 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/032,017 09/19/2013
10800 7590 09/21/2018
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sebastian Krauskopf
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2179-0221 6204
EXAMINER
NORTON, JENNIFER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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 SEBASTIAN KRAUSKOPF, JENS RECKWELL,
ANDREAS SOKOLL, and CHRISTOPHER SOKOLL
Appeal 2018-003 266
Application 14/032,017 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-10, all of which
are pending on appeal. Claims 3 and 4 are cancelled. App. Br. 17 (Claims
App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed November 9, 2017
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed February 1, 2018 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed December 21, 2017 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "an apparatus and a method for
machine parameterization" i.e., setting machine parameters to operate in
diverse conditions. Spec. 1:10-14; Abstract.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent and are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for operating a machine comprising:
acquiring at least one identifying feature of at least one
replaceable working element using an acquisition device of a
portable computer device, the portable computer device being
operated independently of the machine;
setting at least one operating parameter for the machine
with the portable computer device based on the acquired at
least one identifying feature of the at least one replaceable
working element; and
operating at least one working device of the machine
with a controller of the machine to carry out predefined
working sequences with reference to the at least one operating
parameter which was set, the at least one working device
interacting with at least one replaceable working element of the
machine to carry out the predefined working sequences.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App'x.).
9. A machine comprising:
at least one first working device, the at least one first
working device being configured to carry out predefined
working sequences;
a control device configured to control the at least one
first working device to carry out the predefined working
sequences with reference to at least one operating parameter for
the machine, the at least one operating parameter being
changeable;
June 20, 2017 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed September 19,
2013 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
at least one replaceable working element configured to
interact with the at least one first working device to carry out
the predefined working sequences; and
a portable computer device having (i) an acquisition
device configured to acquire at least one identifying feature of
the at least one replaceable working element, and (ii) a
processor device configured to, based on the acquired
identifying feature of the at least one replaceable working
element, output at least one signal to the control device to set
the at least one operating parameter.
App. Br. 19 (Claims App'x.).
EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2005/0164684 Al; published
July 28, 2005; "Chen"), Graiger et al. (US 2001/0035729 Al; published
November 1, 2001; published Nov. 1, 2001; "Graiger"), John et al. (US
2008/0303472 Al; published Dec. 11, 2008; "John"), and Amran (US
2014/0028441 Al; published Jan. 30, 2014). Final Act. 6-13.
(2) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Graiger, John, Amran, and Arunachalam et al. (US
2014/0046618 Al; published Feb. 13, 2014; "Arunachalam"). Final Act.
13-15.
(3) Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Chen, Graiger, Arunachalam, John, and Amran.
Final Act. 16-24.
3
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
DISCUSSION
Independent Claim 1
In support of the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, the
Examiner finds Chen teaches most aspects of Appellants' method for
operating a machine, including:
"acquiring at least one identifying feature of the at least
one working element ... using an acquisition device ... of a
portable computer device, ... the portable computer device ...
being operated independently [ of the machine]" (Final Act. 7
(citing Chen ,r,r 24, 36, Fig. 1 (i.e. field devices 15-19, image
device 38, computer device 30)));
setting at least one operating parameter for the machine
with the portable computer device (Final Act. 7 ( citing Chen ,r
76, Fig. 1)); and
operating at least one working device of the machine
with a controller of the machine to carry out predefined
working sequences with reference to the at least one operating
parameter which was set (Final Act. 7 ( citing Chen ,r,r 22, 7 6,
77, Fig. 1 (field devices 15-19))).
Chen's Figure 1 is reproduced below:
r U)
\.
~ l"RANSCEiYER I
Chen's Figure 1 shows a process control network including controller 12
(i.e., mobile device 30, shown in Figure 2) connected to host computer 14
and field devices 15-19, via network, to control various parameters and
operations of field devices 15-19 (e.g., diagnostic, set-up and configuration).
4
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
According to Chen, controller 12 can be a portable or handheld
computer or communicator 30, shown in Figure 2, and
can communicate directly with different field devices [15-19]
to obtain information from the field devices ( such as process
information or information collected by and stored within the
field devices), to send information ( such as configuration
information) to the field devices or to perform any tasks on the
field devices [ 15-19].
Chen ,r,r 73, 76. In other words, Chen's mobile device 30 can (1) identify all
field devices 15-19 within the network, (2) send a signal to one or more
field devices 15-19 to request information from those field devices 15-19,
and (3) based on device information received, send one or more control
signals to control parameters and operation of those field devices 15-19,
including diagnostic, set-up and configuration ( calibration), parameter
values, measurements, repairing and replacing field devices. Chen ,r,r 3--4,
6, 22, 42, 76. Because Chen's mobile device 30 is able to control
parameters and operation of field devices 15-19, Chen suggests that mobile
device 30 can (1) "set[] at least one operating parameter for the machine
[i.e., field device] with the portable computer device based on the acquired
at least one identifying feature of the at least one replaceable working
element" and (2) "operate[] at least one working device of the machine [i.e.,
field device] ... with reference to [i] the at least one operating parameter
which was set, [and] [ii] the at least one working device interacting with at
least one replaceable working element of the machine to carry out the
predefined working sequences" in the manner recited in Appellants' claim 1
( emphasis added).
5
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
While not necessary to support the conclusion of obviousness, the
Examiner relies on: ( 1) Graiger for expressly teaching the same "process
automation system" in the context of a machine having multiple machine
components ("working devices"), including the alleged missing limitation:
"the at least one working device interacting with at least one replaceable
working element of the machine to carry out the predefined working
sequences" (Final Act. 8 (emphasis added) (citing Graiger ,r,r 34--37, 44, Fig.
1 ); and (2) John or Arman for expressly teaching "setting at least one
operating parameter for the machine . . . based on the acquired at least one
identifying feature of the at least one replaceable working element" (Final
Act. 9--10 (emphasis added) (citing John ,r,r 18, 21, Fig. 1; Arman ,r,r 6, 12,
Fig. 1)).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's rationale for combining
Chen, Graiger, John, and Amran. Instead, Appellants contend the
Examiner's combination of Chen, John, and Arman does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation:
"setting at least one operating parameter for the machine with
the portable computer device based on the acquired at least
one identifying feature of the at least one replaceable working
element"
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellants
acknowledge Chen's mobile device "can send one or more configuration or
calibration or control signals to a field device 424 to cause the field devices
to be configured or calibrated or controlled in some manner, changing
information within on the field device 424." App. Br. 9 (citing Chen ,r 76).
However, Appellants argue "Chen fails to disclose setting any operating
6
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
parameters of the field device 424 based on an acquired identifying
feature of the field device 424." App. Br. 9.
Similarly, Appellants acknowledge John teaches an automation
system to control parameters and operation of field devices (including
monitoring and replacing field devices based on a comparison of parameters
and information between new and old field devices). App. Br. 10 ( citing
John ,r,r 19, 21). However, Appellants argue John does not teach "setting
any operating parameters of the automation system based on an identifying
feature of the field devices 1, 5." App. Br. 10. Likewise, Appellants argue
Arman does not teach "setting at least one operating parameter ... based on
the acquired at least one identifying feature of the at least one replaceable
working element" recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants further argue "[ e ]ven if the process control system 10 of
Chen was modified the based on the disclosures of John and Arman, the
resulting combination would not arrive at the limitations of claim 1." App.
Br. 13.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 20-28. As
such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein.
Ans. 20-28. For additional emphasis, we note (1) Appellants' claim 1 is
broadly worded and can be broadly but reasonably interpreted to encompass
teachings of Chen, Graiger, John and Arman individually, and (2) much of
Appellants' arguments simply attack cited references individually where the
Examiner's rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
7
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). References must be read, not in isolation, but
for what they fairly teach in combination with the prior art as a whole.
Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For example, John and Arman are relied upon by
the Examiner to remedy the perceived deficiencies of Chen regarding the
disputed limitation: "setting at least one operating parameter for the
machine with the portable computer device based on the acquired at least
one identifying feature of the at least one replaceable working element"
recited in claim 1.
Separately, we note Appellants' claim 1 does not distinguish over
Chen alone. The obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S 398,418 (2007). The knowledge to be taken into account includes
knowledge generally available to a person having ordinary skill in the art,
and facts admittedly well known in the art. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[A] prior art reference must be 'considered together
with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art."'). Because
Chen's mobile device 30, shown in Figure 1, can (1) identify all field
devices 15-19 within the network, (2) send a signal to one or more field
devices 15-19 to request information from those field devices 15-19, and
(3) based on device information received, send one or more control signals
to control parameters and operation of those field devices 15-19, including
diagnostic, set-up and configuration (calibration), parameter values,
measurements, repairing and replacing field devices, Chen teaches or
suggests to those skilled in the art that mobile device 30 can "set[] at least
8
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
one operating parameter for the machine [i.e., field device] with the portable
computer device based on the acquired at least one identifying feature of the
at least one replaceable working element" (for example, to perform
diagnostic, repair, and replace field devices) in the manner recited in
Appellants' claim 1 ( emphasis added). Chen ,r,r 3--4, 6, 22, 42, 7 6.
Moreover, and to the extent necessary, both John and Amran also
teach or suggest the setting of operating parameters of one or more field
devices is "based on the acquired at least one identifying feature of the at
least one replaceable working element" cited in Appellants' claim 1.
Ans. 21-27; Final Act. 9-10 (citing John ,r,r 18, 21, Fig. 1; Arman ,r,r 6, 12,
Fig. 1).
Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 5, 6, and 8, which
Appellants do not argue separately. For the same reasons discussed, we also
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 7.
Independent Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Appellants argue, similarly to claim 1, the
Examiner's combination of Chen, Graiger, Arunachalam, John, and Amran
does not teach or suggest the claimed ''processor device configured to, based
on the acquired identifying feature of the at least one replaceable working
element, output at least one signal to the control device to set the at least
one operating parameter." App. Br. 15.
We disagree and for the same reasons discussed in claim 1, sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 9 and its dependent
claim 10, which Appellants do not argue separately.
9
Appeal2018-003266
Application 14/032,017
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2,
and 5-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2011 ).
AFFIRMED
10