Ex Parte Moddemann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12379028 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/379,028 02/11/2009
20529 7590 02/29/2016
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jorg Moddemann
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.
29931U 4067
EXAMINER
DORSEY, RENEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
USPTO@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORG MODDEMANN, KLAUS WEDDINGFELD,
and OLIVER KOEPCKE
Appeal2014-001321
Application 12/379,028
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 An oral hearing was held in this appeal on February 16, 2016.
Appeal2014-001321
Application 12/379,028
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The present invention relates to a modular safety device. See Spec. 1,
line 12.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A modular safety device for the safe deactivation of
actuators which form a hazard source, comprising:
a control module with a central safety controller;
at least one connector module of a first type with inputs
for the connection of sensors and/ or outputs for the connection
of actuators·
'
at least one connector module of a second type; and
a communications bus configured for exchanging data
between the control module and the connector module of the
first type based on a first communications protocol via the
communications bus, wherein:
the connector module of the second type and the control
module are configured to exchange data via the
communications bus using a second communications protocol,
and
the central safety controller is configured to exchange
data alternately with the connector modules of the first type in a
first time slot over the first communications protocol, and with
the connector modules of the second type in a second time slot
over the second communications protocol.
2
Appeal2014-001321
Application 12/379,028
Rejections2
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2007 /0285950 Al, Dec. 13, 2007) in view
of Boren (US 2008/0013569 Al, Jan. 17, 2008), further in view of
Fuhrmann (US 2003/0067873 Al, Apr. 10, 2003). Final Act. 3-9.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Boren and Fuhrmann, further in
view of Ota (US 5,510,920, Apr. 23, 1996). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to claims 1-11 that has been argued by the Appellants.
App. Br. 13-16.
We disagree with Appellants' contentions. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Ans. 3---6.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend that the combination of Nakamura, Boren, and
Fuhrmann fails to teach or suggest "the central safety controller is
configured to exchange data alternately with the connector modules of the
first type in a first time slot over the first communications protocol, and with
2 The§ 112, second paragraph rejection of claim 2 has been overcome by the
filing of the amendment on September 27, 2012. App. Br. 6.
3
Appeal2014-001321
Application 12/379,028
the connector modules of the second type in a second time slot over the
second communications protocol," as recited in independent claim 1
(emphasis added), and similarly recited in independent claim 7 (hereinafter
the "disputed limitations"). App. Br. 13-14.
However, we note that the Examiner has identified the relevant
portions of Nakamura, Boren, and Fuhrmann and has provided sufficient
explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the references
for teaching the feature disputed in Appellants' contentions (Final Act. 3-5;
Ans. 3---6).
The Examiner relies upon Fuhrmann for teaching the disputed
limitations. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner cited to
Figures 2 and 3 of Fuhrmann. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5; see also Fuhrmann
paras. 33-34 (time multiplexing scheme).
Appellants further contend that "the combination [of Nakamura,
Boren, and Fuhrmann] shows various components or features, but fails to
suggest a motivation for combining these features." App. Br. 14.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments by describing the features of Nakamura wherein the ordinary
skilled artisan would have combined with Boren and Fuhrmann, consistent
with the guidelines stated in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007). See Final Act. 4--5. We adopt the Examiner's findings and
underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
The Supreme Court has indicated that:
[It is error to] assum[ e] that a person of ordinary skill
attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements
of prior art designed to solve the same problem .... Common
sense teaches ... that familiar items may have obvious uses
4
Appeal2014-001321
Application 12/379,028
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (citation omitted).
Moreover, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, Appellants' contention that the references are not combinable is
unavailing.
In addition, we do not find Appellants' contentions on page 4 of the
Reply Brief to be persuasive because Appellants' arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 does not recite a
"single" control module.
ii .. ccordingly, 1A .. ppellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the disputed limitations on the cited prior art, or in the proper combinability
of the prior art references as suggested by the Examiner. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 7.
As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2---6 and 8-11, we similarly sustain the Examiner's
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11.
5
Appeal2014-001321
Application 12/379,028
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6