Ex Parte KuengDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201612717685 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 121717,685 134603 ABB 7590 FILING DATE 03/04/2010 05/18/2016 C/O Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas KUENG 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. 1034456-000156 3296 EXAMINER LO,WEILUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 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): ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com Taft-IP-Docket@taftlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS KUENG Appeal2014-005845 Application 12/717,685 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. PERCURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 4 through 12, and 15 through 23. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to an apparatus for configuring an intelligent electronic device, having a configuration unit configured to provide a plurality of function blocks into a visual representation of a configuration of the intelligent electronic device. See Abstract of Appellant's Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a processor configured to execute instructions recorded on a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium; Appeal2014-005845 Application 12/717,685 a configuration unit configured to provide a visual representation of a configuration of an intelligent electronic device with plural function blocks, wherein each function block is configured for executing a function in the intelligent electronic device and has a predetermined set of connection interfaces for connecting the function block with at least one of another function block and an external variable; a checking unit configured to check a completion status of connections of at least one function block in the configuration; and an indicating unit configured to provide the visual representation with a visual indication to indicate the completion status of the connections of the at least one function block, wherein the visual indication includes a first visual indication that the connections of the at least one function block have been completed, and a second visual indication that the connections of the at least one function block are incomplete, the first and second visual indications being different from each other, and wherein at least one of the configuration unit, the checking unit and the indicating unit is comprised in the processor. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4 through 10, 12, 15 through 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kodosky et al. (US 2004/0032433 Al; Feb. 19, 2004) ("Kodosky '433") and Kodosky et al. (US 2008/0034079 Al; Feb. 7, 2008) ("Kodosky '079"). Answer 3-13. 1 The Examiner has rejected claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kodosky '433, Kodosky '079 and Anderson et al. (US 2006/0259255 Al; Nov. 16, 2006). Answer 13-14. 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Briefs filed Oct. 3, 2013, and Sept. 16, 2013, Reply Brief filed Apr. 14, 2014 and the Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 14, 2014. 2 Appeal2014-005845 Application 12/717,685 ISSUES Appellant argues on pages 6 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1through5 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 23 is in error: These arguments present us with the following issues: a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of the Kodosky references teaches a visual indication to indicate the connections of a functional block wherein the first indication is that the connections to the functional block have been completed, the second that the connections are incomplete, and the two indications are different from each other. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments on pages 15 through 20 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner's claim interpretation and the cited portions of the references relied upon by the Examiner to support the finding that the combination of Kodosky references teaches a visual indication to indicate the connections of a functional block wherein the first indication is that the connections to the functional block have been completed, the second that the connections are incomplete, and the two 3 Appeal2014-005845 Application 12/717,685 indications are different from each other. 2 We concur with the Examiner's claim interpretation and findings and adopt them as our own. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 12 and 23. On pages 9 and 10 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant addresses the rejection of claims 4 through 10 and 15 through 22, by reciting claim limitations and stating that they are not taught by the teachings of the Kodosky references. These arguments do not address the specific findings made by the Examiner. Such arguments are not substantive arguments of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."). Thus, we are not presented with additional issues with respect to claims 4 through 11 and 15 through 22 and sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1. 2 We note in several parts of the Examiner's response contain typographical errors of the nature where the cited paragraphs are in Kodosky '433 reference and not the Kodosky '079 (and vice versa). The nature of these errors are such that the skilled artisan would readily recognize which of the two Kodosky references provided support for the Examiner's findings. 4 Appeal2014-005845 Application 12/717,685 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4 through 12, and 15 through 23 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation