Ex Parte Kreuzer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201613188240 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/188,240 07 /21/2011 Stephan Kreuzer 26646 7590 06/23/2016 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 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. 109011238 7762 EXAMINER MYERS, PAUL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2185 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2016 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): uspto@kenyon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHAN KREUZER, ELMAR MA YER, and UDO OLLERT Appeal2014-007169 Application 13/188,240 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN F. HORVATH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-007169 Application 13/188,240 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosure is directed to a device for manipulating interface signals. Title. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. A device for manipulating interface signals, comprising: a slave interface connectable to a master interface of a control device; a master interface connectable to a slave interface of a measuring device; and a circuit configuration suppliable with at least one data- input signal per interface and adapted to output a corresponding data-output signal per data-input signal to a respective other interface; wherein the circuit configuration includes at least one manipulation unit, to which a data-input signal and a substitute- data signal are suppliable and adapted to output a corresponding data-output signal, and a protocol unit, to which at least one protocol-relevant interface signal is suppliable and adapted to choose, based on manipulation rules and information received with the at least one protocol-relevant interface signal, whether the at least one manipulation unit outputs the corresponding data-input signal or the substitute-data signal as an data-output signal. THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS Claims 1-9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Egeland (US 2007/0100478 Al; May 3, 2007). Final Act. 4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Egeland in view of Official Notice. 1 Final Act. 7-8. 1 The Examiner cites Musa (Musa, L., "FPGAS in high energy physics experiments at CERN," International Conference on Field Programmable 2 Appeal2014-007169 Application 13/188,240 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Independent Claim 1 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, because Egeland does not disclose a "circuit configuration includes at least one manipulation unit, to which a data-input signal and a substitute-data signal are suppliable, and a protocol unit adapted to choose whether the at least one manipulation unit outputs the corresponding data-input signal or the substitute-data signal as a data-output signal." Reply Br. 8; see also App. Br. 8. Particularly, Appellants argue that, in Egeland, "neither the simulated sensor signals nor the simulated failures and disturbances signals are output as a data-output signal" (Reply Br. 7). Instead, Appellants argue, "Egeland et al. merely uses mathematical models for forming the modified input signals with the simulated failures, and merely outputs the modified signals . . . along with unmodified signals" (id. at 8). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. First, Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us the Examiner incorrectly determined that "Egeland's modifying is the claimed 'selecting,'" and that Egeland discloses "the signal modifiers [are] selectively outputting simulated sensor signals/control signals or simulated failures/simulated failures and disturbances based on mathematical models Logic and Applications, pp. 2, 8-10; Sept. 2008.) as supporting the finding of Official Notice. Final Act. 8. 3 Appeal2014-007169 Application 13/188,240 of the plant." Ans. 8-9 (citing Egeland iii! 49-51). Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Egeland discloses a manipulation unit receives a data- input signal (the sensor and/or control signals 4, 30) and a substitute-data signal (the simulated failure signals 7, 18), and a protocol unit chooses whether to output the corresponding data-input signal or the substitute-data signal as an data-output signal (outputs 13, 14), within the meaning of the claim. See Ans. 9; Egeland Fig. 3b. The Examiner's interpretation of Egeland is reasonable, because Egeland discloses receiving "input signals" (Egeland if 50) and a "simulated failures and disturbances input" (id. at if 51 ), and "modifying one or more of said input signals (3) for transmitting one or more modified input signals (13) and remaining non-modified input signals (3)" (id. at if 44); such modifications (i.e., selections) may include "replacing input signals" (id. at if 57). Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding the disputed limitations encompass the signal input and modification system of Egeland. Second, we also find the Examiner broadly but reasonably construed the claim to encompass Egeland' s disclosure of "transmitting ... [the] remaining non-modified input signals." See Final Act. 3 (citing Egeland Fig. 3b, if 44). Claim 1 is an open-ended claim2 that recites "adapted to choose ... whether the at least one manipulation unit outputs the corresponding data-input signal or the substitute-data signal;" Egeland discloses "some or all of said control signals are modified," and "the 2 Claim 1 recites "comprising," which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim. See Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 4 Appeal2014-007169 Application 13/188,240 remaining non-modified signals may be furnished." Egeland if 31. That is, Egeland describes a system adapted to choose an input signal to not modify, and to output that (non-modified) signal as an output, within the meaning of the claim.3 Egeland if 31; see also Final Act. 3, 5; Advisory Act. 2. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Egeland discloses the limitations of independent claim 1, or claims 2-9, 11, and 12, which Appellants do not argue separately. Final Act. 8. B. Dependent Claim 10 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 in view of Official Notice (supported by Musa), because "nothing in the Musa document supports the Examiner's statement of Official Notice as reproduced above." Final Act. 9. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, as Appellants' contentions are not supported by any substantive arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 3 Separately, and not relied upon in this Decision, we note Egeland also describes an embodiment in "which the control system provides redundant control signals to the same subprocess, and modiflies] one of the redundant signals." Egeland if 31. Thus, Egeland discloses the system receives two signals and chooses one of these signals to output as a data output signal (as well as additionally outputting the other signal as a modified signal). 5 Appeal2014-007169 Application 13/188,240 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation