Ex Parte Larsson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

13321746 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/321,746
81598 7590
Mark Ussai
SKF USA Inc.
890 Forty Foot Road
PO Box 352
Lansdale, PA 19446
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
02/06/2012 Per-Erik Larsson
05/29/2018
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.
2008P00081 WOUSOl 2639
EXAMINER
KITOV, ZEEV V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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):
ipr@skf.com
mark.ussai@skf.com
bryan. peckj ian @skf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PER-ERIK LARSSON
Appeal2017-007934
Application 13/321,746
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 4--11, and 17-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed November 21, 2011
("Spec."); the Final Office Action dated April 21, 2016 ("Final Act."); the
Appeal Br. filed December 14, 2016 ("Br."); and the Examiner's Answer
dated March 24, 2017 ("Ans."). Appellant did not file a reply brief.
2 Appellant identifies Aktiebolaget SKF as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007934
Application 13/321,746
The claims are directed to a data processing system for processing
data input wherein a first data processor performs a primary data processing
task and a secondary data processor performs a secondary data processing
task. The primary data processing task may be a critical or safety-related
task and the secondary data processing task may be a non-critical or non-
safety-related task. Spec. 6, 11. 25-28. Claim 1, reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A data processing system for processing input data,
compnsmg:
a first data processor configured for performing a
primary data processing task, wherein the first data processor
compnses:
a first power input for connection to a single power
supply;
a first power output; and
a protective circuit between the first power input
and the first power output, wherein the protective circuit
comprises a fuse or a current limiter; and
a second data processor configured for performing a
secondary processing task, wherein the second data processor
comprises a second power input connected to the first power
output such that the second data processor is powered via the
first data processor,
wherein the protective circuit of the first data processor is
configured for preventing operation of the second data
processor from affecting operation of the first data processor
via the first power input.
2
Appeal2017-007934
Application 13/321,746
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the follow prior art in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Barker US 5,184,215
Olaf et al. ("Olaf') 3 DE 19929804 Al
REJECTIONS
Feb.2, 1993
Jan. 5,2000
The Examiner maintains4 and Appellant seeks review of the following
rejections: (1) claims 1, 4--6, 8-10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) over
Olaf; and (2) claims 7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Olaf in view of
Barker. Final Act. 7, 13; Br. 7.
OPINION
After review of the arguments and evidence presented by both
Appellant and the Examiner, we affirm the stated rejections.
It is the Examiner's position that Olaf teaches all elements of claims
1, 4--6, 8-1, 17, and 18 for the reasons stated on pages 7-13 of the Final
Office Action. Appellant argues these claims as a group. We select claim 1
as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 42.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues that each of Olaf s processing modules have several
power sources, not a single power source. Br. 12. Appellant contends,
therefore, that Olaf does not teach the "single source as recited in
Applicant's claims." Id.
3 Appellant has not objected to the Examiner's reliance on an English
language translation of this reference.
4 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2017-007934
Application 13/321,746
We find Appellant's argument unpersuasive of reversible error by the
Examiner because the argument ignores the requirement of the claim
limitation at issue.
Claim 1 requires that the first data processor comprise, inter alia, a
first power input for connection to a single power supply. Br. 16 (Claims
App'x).
Figure 1 of Olaf is reproduced below:
Netnei 1 -28
12
Sc"1alisd~.:-.2inv. ...
.S~eu~:r~ u~rl
...-----,i(iterwa.chung;·S!ati~n-------------
'
,
Figure 1 of Olaf shows a control system 10 with a central
subassembly 12 and multiple decentralized subassemblies 14, 16, 18, and
20. Olaf translation p. 11. The subassemblies 12 through 20 are connected
to one another by way of a field bus 22 for the exchange of data and for
energy supply. Id. The field bus 22 has a communication link 24 as well as
an energy supply line 26. Id. For the purpose of energy supply, the central
subassembly 12 is connected to a central power-supply network component
28. Id. 12.
4
Appeal2017-007934
Application 13/321,746
5
Appeal2017-007934
Application 13/321,746
Figure 2 of Olaf is reproduced below:
64
)
'-"-'--"--.---+-L:...:.~----........,~
-f 2
FIG.2
Olaf s Figure 2 shows the design of one of the subassemblies, e.g. 14.
Id. at 13. A subassembly consists of two independent, redundantly designed
microcomputer systems 42, 44, to which an intrinsic power supply unit 46,
48 is assigned, respectively.
The Examiner identifies Olaf s element 14 (decentralized
subassembly) as equivalent to the first data processor, element 2 as
equivalent to the first power input, and element 28 as equivalent to the
power supply of claim 1. Final Act. 7. The Examiner acknowledges
Appellant's argument that Olafs subassembly (module) includes an
6
Appeal2017-007934
Application 13/321,746
emergency battery power supply ("Olaf discloses multiple other power
supplies"). Ans. 3; Br. 12. However, the claim requires "a first power input
for connection to a single power supply." Br. 16 (emphasis added). Nothing
in claim 1 excludes the presence of an emergency power supply inside the
first data processor, or requires that an entire data processing system is
connected to a single power supply. Olaf teaches a first power input
( element 2 in Olaf Fig. 2) connects to a single power supply, meeting the
limitation of claim 1. See Olaf Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 1 also requires a protective circuit between the first power input
and the first power output, wherein the protective circuit comprises a fuse or
a current limiter. The Examiner identifies a relay in Olaf as equivalent to the
required current limiter, noting that a relay limits current. Final Act. 7.
Appellant argues Olaf does not disclose a fuse or a current limiter. Br. 14.
Appellant does not adequately refute the Examiner's finding that a relay
would limit current.
Based on the above discussion, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Olaf. Because Appellant does not argue separately for
patentability of claims 4--6, 8-10, 17, and 18, we also sustain the rejection of
these claims.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 11 as obvious over Olaf in view of
Barker. Final Act. 13. Claims 7 and 11 are dependent claims ( claim 7
depends from claim 4, which depends from claim 1, and claim 11 depends
from claim 8), and both claims further recite that the protective circuit
comprises a buffer amplifier. Br. 17, 18 (Claims App'x). The Examiner
finds that Barker discloses a protection circuit comprising a buffer amplifier
and that it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Barker
7
Appeal2017-007934
Application 13/321,746
into the data processing system of Olaf to increase the reliability and
accuracy of the protection circuiting by providing means to boost the signal.
Final Act. 13-14.
Appellant contends that Barker does not remedy the deficiencies of
Olaf. Br. 14.
Given our findings above, Appellant does not adequately rebut the
Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. "[W]hen the prior art evidence
reasonably allows the PTO to conclude that a claimed feature is present in
the prior art, the evidence 'compels such a conclusion if the applicant
produces no evidence or argument to rebut it."' In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1259 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1990)).
We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 11 as obvious over Olaf in
view of Barker.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4--11, and 17-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2015).
AFFIRMED
8