Ex Parte Millet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2012

09977552 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)

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.
09/977,552 10/15/2001 Hank E. Millet 031500487DVA 4193
27572 7590 10/25/2012
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
FREAY, CHARLES GRANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2012 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 HANK E. MILLET, NATARAJAN RAJENDRAN, and
WILLIAM W. MCCROSKEY
____________

Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hank E. Millet et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19-21, 26-28, 30, 32-34,
48, 56, 58, 66, and 69. Claims 50, 53, 54, and 59-64 have been withdrawn
from consideration. Claims 1-18, 22-25, 29, 31, 35-47, 49, 51, 52, 55, 57,
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

2
65, 67, and 68 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a compressor control and
protection system. Spec. 1, ll. 7-8. Claim 69, reproduced below, is the sole
independent claim and is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
69. An apparatus comprising:
a compressor including a shell and a compression
mechanism disposed within said shell;
a control block associated with said compressor and
mounted on said shell;
a memory accessible to said control block and associated
with said compressor, said memory storing a first image of
configuration data for said compressor, said configuration data
including compressor identification data, compressor
application data, compressor event history data, and compressor
control data including at least one compressor set point and at
least one compressor pressure limit;
a system master in communication with said control
block that sends a configuration data request to said control
block, receives a copy of said first image of said configuration
data from said control block in response to said request,
constructs a new image of configuration data for said
compressor, said new image including compressor
identification data, compressor application data, compressor
event history data, and compressor control data including at
least one compressor set point and at least one compressor
pressure limit, and sends said new image to said control block;
wherein said control block receives said new image from
said system master and stores said new image in said memory
in place of said first image.
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

3
THE REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the rejection of claims 19-21, 26-28, 30,
32-34, 48, 56, 58, 66, and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Centers (US 6,471,486 B1; iss. Oct. 29, 2002) and Culp (US 5,975,854;
iss. Nov. 2, 1999).
ISSUES
Appellants offer arguments pertaining to all the claims subject to the
sole ground of rejection and offer an additional argument for dependent
claim 32. App. Br. 17-30. For the arguments pertaining to all of the claims,
we select claim 69 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011). We separately consider the additional argument pertaining to
claim 32.
Appellants argue that “the Examiner has failed to show a proper and
explicit motivation for modifying the Centers reference in the manner
suggested.” App. Br. 20. In particular, Appellants argue that the proposed
modification of Centers would render the system unfit for its intended
purpose. App. Br. 22-26. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight reasoning. App. Br. 26-28.
With regard to dependent claim 32, Appellants argue that “Centers
does not teach initially configuring a compressor using a new image from a
system master.” App. Br. 29.
The issues presented by this appeal are:
Did the Examiner articulate adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

4
been led to modify the system of Centers in the manner called for in
claim 69?
Would the disclosure in Centers have rendered obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art the apparatus of claim 32 wherein the compressor is
initially configured by said control block receiving said new image of
configuration data from said system master?
ANALYSIS
Claim 69
The Examiner determined that Centers discloses an apparatus for
remotely configuring a compressor comprising a compressor, a control
block1, a memory, and a system master. Ans. 4. The Examiner further
determined that Centers stores in memory: operating data, i.e., compressor
configuration information, history data, and parameter calculation results,
compressor identification data, event history data, cycle time, number data,
application data such as end user pressures and temperatures, and
temperature and pressure limits. Ans. 5. The Examiner also determined that
the system master in Centers has access to all the data in the memory and
can receive and send copies of it and that the system master can connect
with and monitor the control block, send and receive data from the control
block and access all operating parameter service information and sensor
information. Ans. 6-7.

1 With respect to claim 69, the Examiner relies on Culp to teach mounting
the control block on the shell of Centers’s compressor. Ans. 6. Appellants
do not contest the Examiner’s findings as to the teachings in Culp or the
proposed modification of Centers with Culp.
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

5
The Examiner acknowledged that Centers “does not specifically state
that the system master makes [a] ‘request’ to the control block for an image
containing the noted information or set forth that the modified or new image
is sent back to the control block and stored in said memory in place of the
first image.” Ans. 6. The Examiner determined, however, that the system
master in Centers issues “commands” to the control block for the desired
data, which the Examiner considered to be a “request” for data. Id. Thus,
the Examiner found that “Centers does teach of a system master that makes
[a] request to the control block for an image of configuration data, that the
system master modifies this image and that the modified image is sent back
to the control block.” Ans. 10-11. The Examiner identified that the
difference between the claimed invention and Centers is that “the image is
specified [in claim 69] as including a list of specific compressor
configuration variables and data elements.” Ans. 11 (noting that “Centers
does teach that the memory associated with the control block includes the
data which is listed in claim 69” and “Centers does teach that the system
mater can access all information stored in the memory.”). The Examiner
determined that “it would have been obvious to provide whatever group of
data which the system operator finds necessary for a particular application to
the system master in a single image or data group in order to reduce the
number of data transmissions and simplify the process.” Ans. 11. The
Examiner also determined that it would have been obvious to simply receive
the full image of all the required data at the system master in a single image
because “transmission of a single image containing the data would minimize
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

6
the number of operations and ensure that the data represents the conditions
at a single point in time.” Ans. 7. The Examiner also determined that it
would have been obvious to return the data to the memory after modification
and to store the new image of the data in the same location within the
memory as the old version of the data because this process “would allow the
system to continue to operate without requiring the control block to reassign
new memory throughout the controller software for the location of each
piece of data within the memory” and it “also relieves the control block of
the requirement of tracking the new locations of each of the pieces of data.”
Id.
The only challenge Appellants appear to make to the Examiner’s
findings as to the scope and content of Centers is when Appellants argue that
“the Examiner does not point to an instance where Centers stores, copies,
sends, receives, or constructs anew, an image of configuration data.” App.
Br. 20. The Examiner pointed to the following portions of Centers, with
detailed explanation, as disclosing storing, copying, sending, receiving, and
constructing anew an image of configuration data: col. 25, l. 42 – col. 26, l.
27; col. 19, ll. 33-37; col. 15, ll. 5-17; col. 6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 45; col. 7, ll. 8-
13; col. 9, ll. 57-58; col. 9, ll. 49-65; col. 14, ll. 27-36; col. 6, ll. 66-67; col.
4, ll. 33-52; col. 14, l. 62 – col. 15, l. 17. Ans. 5-6. Appellants have not
identified specific error with any of these findings.
As to the meaning of the claim term “image,” the Examiner
interpreted an “image” of data to encompass “any representation of the
data.” Ans. 11. While Appellants argue that Centers does not explicitly
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

7
disclose sending or receiving an “image” of the specific configuration data
called for in claim 69, Appellants do not appear to contest the Examiner’s
interpretation generally of the term “image” or propose a different
interpretation of their own. See App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 2. Further,
Appellants’ Specification does not define “image” and describes that an
“image” of data can be sent in a “series of Configuration Data packets.”
Spec. 16, ll. 13-16. See also Spec. 14, l. 22 – Spec. 15, l. 3 (describing that a
Configuration Read message is sent from the system master to the slave
node to “command” the slave node to send its configuration data by means
of one or more data packets and a Configuration Data message is used to
send data packets containing the slave node’s configuration data stored in
the slave node’s EEROM of Flash memory storage) and Spec. 15, ll. 14-15
(describing that a message type may have up to eight packets and that each
packet is sent in a separate message). As such, the Examiner’s interpretation
of “image” is consistent with Appellants’ Specification and the Examiner’s
finding that Centers discloses storing, copying, sending, receiving, and
constructing anew, an image of compressor configuration data is supported
by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would render Centers unfit for its intended purpose because “[w]hen
monitoring and updating individual parameters, the serviceperson [of
Centers] would be concerned only with the current values of the specific
parameters, rather than an image of all data” and “[t]he Examiner’s proposed
modification to Centers would provide the service person with a time
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

8
dependent snapshot of all of the systems parameters, but would not
necessarily provide the most current value for the requested parameter,
thereby defeating the primary objective of the Centers’ system.” App.
Br. 24. See also App. Br. 25 (arguing the modification would “add
unneeded complexity to the task and defeat the ‘real time’ nature of the
monitoring, fine tuning, and adjusting that is the focus of the Centers
reference”) and Reply Br. 8 (a service person interested in fine tuning a
compressor “would not want to request or receive an entire image of all
configuration data of the compressor when only the specific parameters
under evaluation are of concern.”) These arguments are based on attorney
speculation as to what types of data a service person using the system of
Centers would be interested in receiving. Such attorney argument cannot
take the place of evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974).
We find that the Examiner’s articulated reasons for modifying Centers
to send configuration data as an image and for storing the image in the same
place as the previous image are based on rational underpinnings (see Ans. 7,
16). As acknowledged by Appellants in the Appeal Brief, “[i]n designing
any system, two issues encountered are reducing the computational
complexity and increasing the accuracy and reliability of data.” App. Br. 27,
ll. 16-18.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has engaged in impermissible
hindsight reconstruction by citing “the advantages of Applicants’ claimed
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

9
apparatus over Centers as a basis for the rejection.” App. Br. 26-27.
Appellants state:
As taught in the claims, the system master constructs a new
image of configuration data for the compressor and sends the
new image to the control block, which in turn stores the new
image in the memory. This provides a marked advantage when,
for example, configuring a replacement compressor or
initializing a compressor. As the Examiner notes, Applicants’
use of an image of configuration data reduces the computational
complexity of the system, i.e., reduces the amount of
operations, and ensures that the configuration data is accurate,
i.e. data represents the conditions at a single point in time. See
Office Action, 10/22/2008, p. 5.
App. Br. 27. Appellants appear to agree by this statement that the
Examiner’s reason for modifying the system of Centers in the manner
claimed is based on rational underpinnings and Appellants fail to show how
the Examiner’s reasoning is based on hindsight. As noted by the Examiner,
“the applicant’s disclosure does not set forth or recognize the examiners [sic]
reasons and motivations for combining as technical advantages of his
system.” Ans. 15. The Examiner’s reasoning is instead grounded in
common sense and the background knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
relevant art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(“[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.”). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

10
claim 69, and claims 19-21, 26-28, 30, 33, 34, 48, 56, 58, and 66, which fall
with claim 69.
Claim 32
Appellants argue that “[n]owhere does Centers teach or suggest a
compressor that is ‘initially configured by said control block receiving said
new image of compressor data from said system master’ as recited by
[dependent] claim 32.” Reply Br. 10. See also App. Br. 29.
Appellants point to paragraph [0064], lines 1-11 of their published
application as describing the subject matter of claim 32. App. Br. 14. The
pertinent disclosure in this portion of Appellants’ Specification describes:
The compressor is shipped with the data preconfigured. The
system master may send a Configuration Request to a selected
compressor node and get an image of the stored data. It may
modify that data or it may construct a completely new image
and send it to the compressor for storage by sending it in the
appropriate series of Configuration Data packets.
Spec. 16, ll. 12-16. This description appears to describe using a new image
to reconfigure the preconfigured compressor. To the extent Appellants
characterize this reconfiguration as initially configuring the compressor, then
the Examiner’s findings discussed supra as to the scope and content of
Centers in combination with the Examiner’s proposed modification to
Centers and the reasoning articulated therefor, set forth an adequate showing
of how Centers renders obvious the subject matter of claim 32. Appellants
admit in their arguments that Centers “suggests that a previously configured
compressor package may be reconfigured remotely, by resetting certain
parameters.” App. Br. 29. This is the same disclosure, however, as is found
Appeal 2010-005166
Application 09/977,552

11
in Appellants’ own Specification, which Appellants point to as disclosing
initially configuring a compressor. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 32.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner articulated adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to modify the system of Centers in the manner called for in
claim 69.
The disclosure in Centers would have rendered obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art the apparatus of claim 32 wherein the compressor is
initially configured by said control block receiving said new image of
configuration data from said system master.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 19-21, 26-
28, 30, 32-34, 48, 56, 58, 66, and 69.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls