Ex Parte Landgraf

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2011

10470430 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2011)

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.
10/470,430 12/10/2003 Guenther Landgraf 2704 8149
7590 12/01/2011
Striker Striker & Stenby
103 East Neck Road
Huntington, NY 11743
EXAMINER
NORTON, JENNIFER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GUENTHER LANDGRAF

___________

Appeal 2009-012025
Application 10/470,430
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012025
Application 10/470,430

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 20-24 and 26-40. Claims 1-19 and 25 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a control and monitoring system that
includes a hierarchically structured instantaneous model of a
machine/system with active elements corresponding to the actions of various
active groups, such that interacting active components belong to the various
action groups. (Spec. Abstract.)
Claim 20 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics and minor
formatting:
20. A system (1) for controlling and/or monitoring machines
and/or systems (2) with action components (3, 4) that in terms of the
control/monitoring requirements belong to different action groups
(5, 6),
wherein the control and/or monitoring system (1) is supplied
with status information (51) pertaining to action components (3, 4) of
different action groups (5, 6),
which information corresponds to the instantaneous status of
associated action components (3, 4) and is fed into a user operation
and display section (8) with a displayed instantaneous model (25) of
the machine/system (2) and processed for updating the instantaneous
model (25),
which model is constructed, on the specification of the physical
configuration of the machine/system (2), of linked- together action
elements (10) and transition elements (11),
of which action/transition elements (10, 11), different action
groups (5, 6) can be addressed individually and upon being addressed
trigger a control and monitoring interface (12) of the applicable action
(16)/transition (17), in particular of action/transition programs (5, 6),
or call up other action/transition elements (10, 11),
Appeal 2009-012025
Application 10/470,430

3
wherein the machine/system (2) has SPS action group (5) and
additionally has CNC (6) and drive action groups, wherein SPS is
stored programmable controller and CNC is computer numerical
controller.

Claims 20-24, 26, 27, and 29-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Spriggs (U.S. Patent No. 6,421,571 B1),
Schneider (U.S. Patent No. 4,682,280), and Wright (U.S. Patent 5,453,933).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Spriggs, Schneider, Wright, and Boehmke (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2005/0271039 A1).

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 20, 37, 39, and 40, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 6-9) that the Examiner improperly
combined Spriggs, Schneider, and Wright.
The Examiner acknowledged that Spriggs does not teach the disputed
limitation “wherein the machine/system (2) has SPS action group (5) and
additionally has CNC (6) and drive action groups, wherein SPS is stored
programmable controller and CNC is computer numerical controller”
(Ans. 6) and therefore, cited Schneider for the disclosure of an SPS that
controls drive movements connected to a SPS and cited Wright for the
disclosure of a CNC process class (Ans. 7). The Examiner concluded that:
it would have been obvious . . . to modify Spriggs to include a
machine/system that has SPS action group and additionally has CNC
and drive action groups to maximize reduction of idle time in
operation . . . and to provide CNC machine tool control that is easily
modifiable, and is scalable such that it may be used for either high end
or low end CNC machine tools.
(Ans. 7.) We agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-012025
Application 10/470,430

4
Spriggs relates to “an industrial plant asset management system
including a unified display environment and a common database structure
for protecting and managing industrial plant assets including a multifarious
grouping of machinery and processes.” (Col. 1, ll. 6-11.) In one
embodiment, an industrial plant asset management system 10 (col. 5, ll. 54-
59; fig. 1) includes data acquisition devices 60 coupled to
transducers/sensors 70 for collecting signals from asset locations including
measurement points (col. 6, ll. 8-10).
Schneider relates “to [a] simulation arrangement for determining
desired values for the transport of workpieces and the dependent adjusting
quantities, such as the gripper movement and the tool automation, of a
multistage press.” (Col. 1, ll. 6-11.) Schneider teaches that a frame
structure of the simulation arrangement (fig. 1) includes a keyboard 17 for
the input of operating signals (col. 5, ll. 61-63) that are fed into a stored-
programmable control 19, also referred to as SPS (col. 5, l. 67 to col. 6, l. 3).
The SPS of Schneider controls “the data traffic with the tool automation 21,
the gripper clamping operation 22 and the workpiece transport control 23 are
also carried out via input-output components” (i.e., the claimed “SPS action
group”). (Col. 6, ll. 24-27.) Furthermore, “[t]he SPS is used for the
processing of all operational data, the switching-on and the release of the
drives, the monitoring of the driving movements and also the blocking of the
sequence of movements when disturbances occur or inadmissible operating
data are exceeded” (i.e., the claimed “drive action group”). (Col. 6, ll. 4-9.)
Wright relates to control systems used to operate computer numeric
controlled (CNC) machine tools. (Col. 1, ll. 9-11.) In the “Background of
the Invention” section, Wright teaches that CNC software for sophisticated,
Appeal 2009-012025
Application 10/470,430

5
high-end CNC machines cannot also be used to operate low-end CNC
machine tools. (Col. 3, ll. 33-37.) Wright further teaches “a real-time CNC
software system that isolates system responsibilities into classes that permit
a CNC manufacturer or system integrator to manage complexity and
change.” (Col. 6, ll. 12-15.) One such class is the process class, which
includes a low-end milling machine, a lathe, a punch press, an EDM, or a
gauging system (i.e., the claimed “CNC action group”). (Col. 8, ll. 5-8.)
Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s finding that a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized
that incorporating the SPS of Schneider with the industrial plant asset
management system of Spriggs would improve Spriggs by providing the
advantage of minimizing down time of equipment. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In the alternative, combining
Spriggs with Schneider is no more than combining the known SPS of
Schneider with the known industrial plant asset management system of
Spriggs, to yield predictable results. See id. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 7) that modifying Spriggs to include the SPS of Schneider
would have been obvious.
Furthermore, Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s finding that a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
recognized that incorporating the CNC software of Wright with the
industrial plant asset management system of Spriggs would improve Spriggs
by providing the ability to run the same CNC software on both high-end and
low-end CNC machines. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In the alternative,
combining Spriggs with Wright is no more than combining the known CNC
software of Wright with the known industrial plant asset management
Appeal 2009-012025
Application 10/470,430

6
system of Spriggs, to yield predictable results. See id. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that modifying Spriggs to include the CNC
software of Wright would have been obvious.
First, Appellant argues that Spriggs, Schneider, and Wright cannot be
combined because “[t]he system disclosed in . . . Spriggs manages plants,
turbines, pump trains, etc., or in other words passive devices that need to be
controlled” while “[t]he system in accordance with the present invention
manages machines with CNC, SPS action groups which are active devices
and control passive devices like drives.” (Br. 6-7.) However, these
arguments not commensurate in scope with claims 20, 37, 39, and 40,
because such claims do not expressly require “machines with CNC, SPS
action groups which are active devices and control passive devices like
drives.”
Second, Appellant also argues that “[t]hese machines [of the present
invention] are for example machine tools that use handling systems and
several tools stored in magazines to treat a single workpiece” but “[n]either
Spriggs nor Schneider nor White discloses such machines.” (Br. 7.)
However, these arguments are also not commensurate in scope with
claims 20, 37, 39, and 40 because such claims do not expressly require
“machine tools that use handling systems and several tools stored in
magazines to treat a single workpiece.”
Third, Appellant argues that “Schneider simply mentions a SPS, CNC
and a drive, since these are a part of the multistage press mentioned in his
teaching” and “[n]o reason can be seen why such machine parts should now
be combined with the teaching of . . . Spriggs.” (Br. 7.) However, as
discussed previously, the combination of Spriggs, Schneider, and Wright is
Appeal 2009-012025
Application 10/470,430

7
based on the improvement of a similar device in the same way as in the prior
art, or in the alternative, by combining known elements to achieve
predictable results.
Last, Appellant argues that “[i]t was explained in detail that the
present invention provides for the highly advantageous results which are not
accomplished by the solutions proposed in the references.” (Br. 8.)
However, Appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence of such
“highly advantageous results.” Arguments of counsel cannot take the place
of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang,
100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined of Spriggs,
Schneider, and Wright to reject independent claims 20, 37, 39, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 20, 37,
39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 21-24, 26, 27, 29-36, and 38 depend from independents
claims 20 and 37 and Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments
with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 21-24, 26, 27, 29-36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons
discussed with respect to independent claims 20 and 37.
Appellant has not presented any arguments challenging the propriety
or the substance of the rejection of dependent claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Spriggs, Schneider, Wright, and Boehmke.
Thus, any such arguments are deemed to be waived.

Appeal 2009-012025
Application 10/470,430

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20-24 and 26-40 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD