Ex Parte Lobig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2014

11665509 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2014)

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.
11/665,509 04/13/2007 Norbert Lobig 2004P17588 8840
24131 7590 03/07/2014
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
GAMI, TEJAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NORBERT LOBIG and JURGEN TEGELER
___________

Appeal 2011-008883
Application 11/665,509
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-008883
Application 11/665,509

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 10-18. Appeal Brief 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to a method for redundancy control of
electrical devices. Specification 1.

Illustrative Claim (Emphasis Added)
10. A method for redundancy control of a plurality of electrical devices,
comprising: monitoring each of the plurality of electrical devices, each of
the plurality of electrical devices monitored by a different electrical device
in the plurality of electrical devices; and monitoring within each electrical
device of the plurality of electrical devices having redundant internal
devices, such that the redundant internal devices monitor each other
reciprocally for the respective electrical device, wherein the monitoring of
each of the plurality of electrical devices and the monitoring of the
redundant internal devices define, for the respective electrical device, an
internal device which is in an active operational state and at least one
internal device which is redundant hereto and which is in a standby
operational state, and the internal devices exchange with each other control
information over a message distribution system.

Appeal 2011-008883
Application 11/665,509

3
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 10-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by McLaughlin (U.S. Patent Number 5,088,021; issued February
11, 1992). Answer 3-7.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief
and adopt them as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly
overturn or set aside in the analysis as follows.
Appellants argue McLaughlin fails to disclose “monitoring each of the
plurality of electrical devices, each of the plurality of electrical devices
monitored by a different electrical device in the plurality of electrical
devices” as recited in claim 10. Appeal Brief 6. Appellants argue,
“McLaughlin et al. do not teach that the process control unit 20 monitors the
process control unit 20’ and that the process control unit 20’ monitors the
process control unit 20.” Id. Appellants further argue that even if
McLaughlin’s digital input device 43 was misinterpreted to include that
function of monitoring the process control unit 20, the monitoring of the
electrical devices, as claimed, would not be disclosed because the process
control units 20 and 20’ would be monitored by the digital input devices 43
which are outside of the plurality of electrical devices (process control units
20 and 20’). Id. at 8-9.
Appeal 2011-008883
Application 11/665,509

4
The Examiner finds McLaughlin is not deficient in regard to
disclosing the disputed claim limitation:
See McLaughlin Figure 1 and Col. 1, Lines 46-51 for
“exchanging signal groups with the plant control network are
subsidiary units, which can be referred to as process control
units. The process control units receive control instructions
from the plant control network and forward status information
to the plant control network;” and McLaughlin Figure 1 and
Col. 4, Lines 20-21 for “process control unit 20 exchanging
signals with the plant control network 11.” Therefore, process
control units 20 and 20’ on network 11 are clearly monitored
(e.g., exchanging signals, status information) (see Figure 1).

Also, see McLaughlin Col. 5, Lines 50-55 for “while the
present invention has been described with particular reference
to a process control network, it will be clear to those skilled in
the art that the technique disclosed herein can be
advantageously adapted in any processing system having
redundant processors therein.”

Under such considerations, process control units 20 and
20’ are monitored.

Answer 7-8.
Appellants also argue McLaughlin fails to disclose:
wherein the monitoring of each of the plurality of electrical
devices and the monitoring of the redundant internal devices
define, for the respective electrical device, an internal device
which is in an active operational state and at least one internal
device which is redundant hereto and which is in a standby
operational state [as recited in claim 10].

Appeal Brief 9 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend:
The Examiner interprets the controller-A 30 and controller-B 40
of McLaughlin et al. as redundant internal devices of the
Appeal 2011-008883
Application 11/665,509

5
process control unit 20 and states that “the monitoring of each
of the plurality of electrical devices (e.g., process control unit
20, 20’) (see Fig. 1; and Column 3, Line 15) and the monitoring
of the redundant internal devices” would define, for the
respective electrical device, an internal device which is in an
active operational state and at least one internal device which is
redundant thereto and which is in a standby operational state.
However, McLaughlin et al. do not teach monitoring each of
the plurality of electrical devices, i.e. process control units 20,
20’ as has been explained above. In particular McLaughlin et
al. do not teach that such monitoring would influence a
definition of the state of controller-A 30 and controller-B 40.
The cited portion, namely, column 3, line 15 of McLaughlin et
al. only teaches that at least one process control device is
coupled to each process control unit 20 and/or process control
unit 20’. McLaughlin et al. do not disclose limitation (C) of
claim 10.

Id. at 9-10.
Regarding method claim1, we conclude the first recited “monitoring”
is performed by “a different electrical device” and the second recited
“monitoring” is performed by “redundant internal devices [that] monitor
each other reciprocally. . . .” Therefore, these monitoring functions are
positively recited as being performed by devices instead of as steps or acts
within a method claim. Thus, we conclude claim 1 appears to be a hybrid
claim. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim reciting both a system and a method for using that
system held indefinite). Accordingly, question arises as to how much
patentable weight, if any, should be given to the contested limitations.

Appeal 2011-008883
Application 11/665,509

6

Assuming arguendo that our reviewing court may give weight
to the contested limitations, the Examiner finds:
See McLaughlin Figure 2 and Col. 3, Lines 53-55 for
controller-A and controller-B internal to process control unit
20. Also, see Col. 1, Lines 36-42, Col. 1, Lines 65-67, and Col.
4, Lines 46-52 for “one controller (controller--A 30 or
controller--B 40) operates as a primary controller and the other
controller operates as a secondary controller (in more of a
reserve mode than a back-up, in that if a failure of controller--A
30 should occur, controller--B is ready to take over the control
function with essentially no start-up or initialization time).”

Thereby, McLaughlin anticipates redundant devices (e.g.,
controller-A and controller-B) monitoring for failure; and a
device in an active operational state (e.g., primary or active
controller) and a device in a standby operational state (e.g.,
secondary, standby, or inactive controller), as claimed.

Answer 8-9.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and do not find Appellants’
argument persuasive. Therefore, for essentially the same reasons articulated
by the Examiner in the Answer (7-9) as discussed above, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claim 10. Claims 11-18 (not
argued separately) fall with the respective independent claim from which
they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).

DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 10-18 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
Appeal 2011-008883
Application 11/665,509

7

AFFIRMED

msc