Ex Parte Mayer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2017

13141028 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2017)

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.
13/141,028 06/20/2011 Elmar Mayer 10901/232 1867
26646 7590 12/29/2017
ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
DANG, PHONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2017 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):
u spto @ keny on .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELMAR MAYER and ALEXANDER KOBLER
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,02 s1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 16—32, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1—15 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is DR. JOHANNES
HEIDENHAIN GmbH. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method for
detecting the type of communication interface between position-measuring
devices and sequential electronics; the interface is determined based on the
signals transmitted from a sequential electronic device (Abstract). Claim 16,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
16. A device for automated detection of an interface between
a position-measuring device and sequential electronics that are
interconnected via a data-transmission channel, the position­
measuring device including an interface unit and a position­
measuring unit, the interface unit being connected to the data-
transmission channel and to the position-measuring unit to
exchange data, an interface to the sequential electronics being
selectable in the interface unit from at least two interfaces,
comprising:
an interface-detection unit arranged in the position­
measuring device and adapted to be supplied with at least one
input signal from the sequential electronics via the data
transmission channel, and includes a device adapted to determine
a time sequence of signal edges of the at least one input signal in
conjunction with a signal state; and
an evaluation unit adapted to ascertain an interface used
by the sequential electronics by evaluation of the determined
time sequence of signal edges, the interface selectable in the
interface unit;
wherein the data-transmission channel connects the
position measuring device and the sequential electronics with at
least one pair of lines, and is terminated on both sides with
driver-/receiver modules; and
wherein during the detection of the interface, driver
modules which are provided for transmitting data to sequential
electronics are switched to inactive.
2
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kostadinov US 2009/0070504 A1 Mar. 12,2009
Siraky EP 0171579 A1 Feb. 19, 1986
Hagl EP 0660209 A1 June 28, 1995
REJECTION
Claims 16—32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Kostadinov
(Final Act. 2—6).2
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived (see MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1)).
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 16 and 19—32
Appellants contend their invention, as recited in claims 16 and 19-32,
is patentable over AAPA and Kostadinov (App. Br. 3—7).3 The issues
presented by the arguments are:
2 In the Final Action, the Examiner has a separate heading for the rejection
of claims 18, 25, and 26; however, the grounds are the same for the rejection
of claims 16, 17, 19-24, and 27—32 (Final Act. 2—6).
3 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action,
Advisory Action, and Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
Issue la: Has the Examiner shown the combination of AAPA and
Kostadinov teaches or suggests “determin[ing] a time sequence of signal
edges . . . [and] ascertaining] an interface used by the sequential electronics
by evaluation of the determined time sequence of signal edges,” as recited in
claim 16 and similarly recited in claim 24?
Issue lb: Has the Examiner shown the combination of AAPA and
Kostadinov teaches or suggests “during the detection of the interface, driver
modules which are provided for transmitting data to sequential electronics
are switched to inactive,” as recited in claim 16 and similarly recited in
claim 24?
ANALYSIS
Issue la
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kostadinov teaches
or suggests “determin[ing] a time sequence of signal edges . . . [and]
ascertaining] an interface used by the sequential electronics by evaluation
of the determined time sequence of signal edges,” as recited in claim 16 and
similarly recited in claim 24 (App. Br. 3—5; Reply Br. 2-4). Specifically,
Appellants argue “Kostadinov describes that [the] clock or timing of signals
may be used to identify the communications protocol,” but, according to
Appellants, “[s]imply analyzing the baud rate of a signal, i.e., its data or
transmission speed, does not entail determining and evaluating a time
sequence of signal edges” (Reply Br. 3 (citing Kostadinov 1 58)).
Appellants further argue “there is no disclosure or suggestion that [the]
process” of using clock or timing signals to identify the communications
4
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
protocol “includes a determination or an analysis of a time sequence of
signal edges” (App. Br. 5 (citing Kostadinov 158)).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 3, 10—11;
Ans. 6), and we agree, Kostadinov teaches a system which monitors the
“[sjignals transmitted on the system bus ... to determine what
communications protocol the system bus is using” (Kostadinov 16). The
Examiner further finds (Final Act. 12—13; Ans. 9), and we agree, Kostadinov
teaches a signal monitoring technique that monitors “the clock or timing of
signals sent on the transmission medium” (Kostadinov | 58).
Appellants’ argument that monitoring the “clock or timing of
signals . . . [sjimply analyzes] the baud rate of a signal, i.e., its data or
transmission speed” and so “does not entail determining and evaluating a
time sequence of signal edges” (Reply Br. 3 (citing Kostadinov 1 58))
misinterprets Kostadinov. Kostadinov does not teach that the monitoring of
the timing of signals only monitors the baud rate; instead, Kostadinov
teaches two techniques to identify the communications protocol being used:
1) monitoring the clock or timing of signals and 2) monitoring transmission
baud rates. Specifically, paragraph 58 of Kostadinov states:
Aspects of the physical layer itself may also be used to identify
the communications protocol being used. For example, the clock
or timing of signals sent on the transmission medium (e.g., the
system bus 110) may be specific to the communications protocol.
The processor 210 may monitor the timing associated with signal
transmitted on the system bus 110 to determine which
communications protocol is associated with the timing. In
addition, the transmission baud rates for a message may be
monitored. For example, baud rates of 600 or 4800 may indicate
the FOXCom™ protocol and baud rates of 1200 may indicate the
HART™ protocol
5
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
(emphases added). As both the Examiner (Ans. 12) and Appellants point
out, “the monitoring of the time of signals suggests recognition of signal
edges” (Sept. 15, 2014 Response 7; Reply Br. 4 n.2). As such, Kostadinov
teaches, or at least suggests, the time sequence of signal edges are
determined and evaluated when Kostadinov “determinine[s] which
communications protocol is associated with the timing” of signals
(Kostadinov 158).
Appellants’ remaining arguments directed to Kostadinov’s other
signal monitoring techniques do not address the Examiner’s finding that
Kostadinov monitors the clock or timing of signals (see App. Br. 4—5; see
also Reply Br. 2—3). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in finding Kostadinov teaches or suggests “determin[ing] a time sequence of
signal edges . . . [and] ascertaining] an interface used by the sequential
electronics by evaluation of the determined time sequence of signal edges,”
as recited in claim 16 and similarly recited in claim 24.
Issue lb
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
AAPA and Kostadinov teaches or suggests “during the detection of the
interface, driver modules which are provided for transmitting data to
sequential electronics are switched to inactive,” as recited in claim 16 and
similarly recited in claim 24 (App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 4—5). Specifically,
Appellants argue “Kostadinov makes no mention[] whatsoever [of] driver
modules” (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4—5). Appellants further argue Kostadinov
does not teach “switching driver modules to an inactive state” when a
communication protocol is being identified (App. Br. 5—7) because the
6
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
“determination of the protocol used by a device” in Kostadinov requires the
device to “be actively transmitting signals.” (Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, AAPA
teaches that interfaces, such as EnDat and SSI, provide communications
between position-measuring devices and sequential electronics (Final
Act. 2—3 (citing Spec. 1—2)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
Kostadinov teaches that devices can communicate using the Profibus
communication protocol (Final Act. 4 (citing Kostadinov 140)). The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, EnDat, SSI, and Profibus provide their
communications via the physical layer “RS-485 standard” which “requires at
least one pair of lines, and is terminated on both sides with driver-/receiver
modules” (Final Act. 4, 13 (citing Heidendain, EnDat 2.2 Bidirectional
Interface for Position Encoders 15 (2006); Wikipedia, Synchronous Serial
Interface, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_Serial_Interface (last
visited April 27, 2005); Spec 6:9-27); Ans. 10—11). Further, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, “driver modules are used to transmit data” (Ans. 11
(emphasis omitted)).
Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Kostadinov’s device
first identifies which communication protocol was used to encode a signal
received from another device and then, “[ajfter identifying the
communication protocol” of the received signal, the device transmits signals
using that identified communication protocol (Final Act. 11; Ans. 11 (citing
Kostadinov Tflf 59-65) (emphasis omitted); see Kostadinov 148, Fig. 6).
That is, the Examiner finds that the device’s transmission driver module is
inactive during protocol detection because the device does not transmit until
after the protocol has been detected.
7
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
Appellants’ argument that “Kostadinov makes no mention[]
whatsoever to driver modules” (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4—5) does not address
the Examiner’s finding that the RS-485 standard, underlying the EnDat, SSI,
and Profibus communications taught by AAPA and Kostadinov, teaches
“driver-/receiver modules” (Ans. 10—11; Final Act. 4, 13).
Further, we disagree with Appellants’ argument that the
“determination of the protocol used by [Kostadinov’s] device” requires that
the device is “actively transmitting signals” (Reply Br. 5; App. Br. 5—7). As
discussed supra, Kostadinov’s device determines the protocol other devices
use by monitoring the signals sent from other devices (Kostadinov | 58).
The device which determines the communication protocol being used does
not transmit the signals which it monitors; instead, the device receives
signals, i.e., the signals to be monitored, that are transmitted from some
other device {id. H 48, 61—62). Further, the device “encode[s] signals sent
on the system bus,” i.e., transmit signals, “[ajfter determining which
communications protocol is being used” {id. 148). Because the device does
not transmit signals unit after it has determined the communication protocol,
the device’s driver modules, which are used to transmit data, are inactive
during the determination of the communication protocol.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the
combination of AAPA and Kostadinov teaches or suggests “during the
detection of the interface, driver modules which are provided for
transmitting data to sequential electronics are switched to inactive,” as
recited in claim 16 and similarly recited in claim 24. Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of claims 16 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA and Kostadinov. It follows, we sustain the
8
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—23 and 25—32, for which Appellants offer
no additional persuasive arguments for patentability (see App. Br. 7—8).
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 17
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claim 17, is patentable
over AAPA and Kostadinov (App. Br. 7—8). The issue presented by the
arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner shown the combination of AAPA and
Kostadinov teaches or suggests “at least one edge-detection unit adapted to
determine signal edges and signal statuses, and a timer adapted to determine
the time sequence of the signal edges,” as recited in claim 17?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
AAPA and Kostadinov teaches or suggests “at least one edge-detection unit
adapted to determine signal edges and signal statuses, and a timer adapted to
determine the time sequence of the signal edges,” as recited in claim 17
(App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 5). Specifically, Appellants argue “[n]o edge-
detection unit or timer is mentioned” in the cited portions of Kostadinov
(App. Br. 8). Appellants further argue Kostadinov “refer[s] to signal
content[,] type,” or “baud rate” (Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 13—14) that Kostadinov “monitor[s] the timing
associated with signal[s] transmitted on the system bus 110 to determine
which communications protocol is associated with the timing” (Kostadinov
158).
9
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
Appellants’ argument that “[n]o edge-detection unit or timer is
mentioned” in the cited portions of Kostadinov (App. Br. 8) does not address
the Examiner’s finding that monitoring the timing of signals teaches, or at
least suggests, an edge-detection unit and a timer (Ans. 12—14). As
discussed supra, both the Examiner {id. at 12) and Appellants agree that “the
monitoring of the time of signals suggests recognition of signal edges”
(Sept. 15, 2014 Response 7; Reply Br. 4 n.2). Further, monitoring the
timing of signals at least suggests determining when the signal starts (i.e., a
leading edge), when the signal ends (i.e., a trailing edge), or the length of the
signal (i.e., the time between the leading and trailing edge of the signal) (see
Ans. 8). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have known that a timer is used to monitor the timing of signals {see
Ans. 14). As such, we are not persuaded using a timer to monitor the timing
of signals and an edge-detection unit to detect signal edges would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art” {Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the
combination of AAPA and Kostadinov teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 17. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Kostadinov.
ISSUE 3
10
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 18
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claim 18, is patentable
over AAPA and Kostadinov (App. Br. 8—9). The issue presented by the
arguments is:
Issue 3: Has the Examiner shown the combination of AAPA and
Kostadinov teaches or suggests “a status memory unit arranged in the
interface-detection unit and adapted to be supplied with and store the
determined signal edges and signal statuses, and timer values associated with
the signal edges,” as recited in claim 18?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
AAPA and Kostadinov teaches or suggests “a status memory unit arranged
in the interface-detection unit and adapted to be supplied with and store the
determined signal edges and signal statuses, and timer values associated with
the signal edges,” as recited in claim 18 (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 6).
Specifically, Appellants argue Kostadinov’s “memory 220 is not
described ... as being supplied with or storing determined signal edges and
status or timer values associated with signal edges” (App. Br. 9). Appellants
further argue Kostadinov stores “signal content or type" rather than signal
edges and timer values (Reply Br. 6). Additionally, Appellants further argue
“merely because EnDat and SSI interfaces have different signal
characteristics does not lead to the conclusion that either European
Published Patent Application 0 660 209 [Hagl] or 0 171 579 [Siraky]
discloses, or even suggests, distinguishing between the two protocols based
[on] differences in their signals” (App. Br. 9).
11
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Kostadinov teaches determining which
communications protocol is in use by evaluating monitored signal edges and
timing (Final Act. 12—13; Ans. 8—9). The Examiner further finds (Ans. 15),
and we agree, Kostadinov determines the communication protocol in use by
comparing the monitored signals to a look-up-table (LUT) storing “[e]ach
specific message, relationship, and frequency” associated with “a
corresponding communications protocol” (Kostadinov 156). The Examiner
concludes “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to also store signal edges, signal statuses,
and timer values ([clock] values or timing values)” of monitored signals
(Ans. 16).
Appellants’ argument that Kostadinov does not teach a memory
storing signal edges, status, and timer values (App. Br. 9) does not persuade
us that Examiner improperly concluded an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have found it obvious to store this data (Ans. 16). Specifically, Appellants
do not proffer sufficient argument or evidence addressing the Examiner’s
conclusion that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to
store determined signal edges, statuses, and timer values in memory.
Further, Appellants’ argument that Kostadinov analyzes “signal
content or type" (Reply Br. 6) does not address the Examiner’s finding that
Kostadinov monitors the timing of signals (Kostadinov | 58; Final Act. 12—
13), which at least suggests determining and evaluating signal edges and
timing. Additionally, Appellants’ argument that neither “European
Published Patent Application 0 660 209 or 0 171 579 discloses, or even
suggests, distinguishing between the two protocols based [on] differences in
12
Appeal 2017-007611
Application 13/141,028
their signals” (App. Br. 9) does not address the Examiner’s finding that
Kostadinov teaches determining communication protocols based on the
protocols’ respective signal timing (Final Act. 12—13).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the
combination of AAPA and Kostadinov teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 18. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Kostadinov.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and
Kostadinov 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
13