Ex Parte KUENG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 16, 2016

12717685 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

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