Ex Parte Ruane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2012

11018847 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
11/018,847 12/20/2004 Margaret Ruane 2003P19356 US01 8870
7590 12/24/2012
Siemens Corporation
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
MASINICK, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2012 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 MARGARET RUANE and DAVID SWOCH
_____________

Appeal 2010-007617
Application 11/018,847
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRYAN F. MOORE, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007617
Application 11/018,847

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 21-40. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed generally to building control systems,
and more particularly, to building control systems that include field
panel control devices. See Spec. 1.
Claim 21 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
21. A controller for use in a building control system, the
controller comprising:
at least one input operably connected to receive sensor
information;
at least one output operably connected to communicate
control information;
a processor configured to
generate the control information based on the
sensor information and at least one set point,
generate web pages including one or more building
control values; and
at least one communication circuit configured to
communicate the generated web pages to an external web
client, the at least one communication circuit further operable to
communicate an executable program to the external web client,
the executable program operable to cause the external web
client to automatically poll for updates to at least one of the one
or more building control values.
Appeal 2010-007617
Application 11/018,847

3

REFERENCES
Papadopoulous US 6,061,603 May 9, 2000
Christianson US 6,085,186 Jul. 4, 2000
Meyer US 6,157943 Dec. 5, 2000
Birzer US 2002/0082720 A1 Jun. 27, 2002

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 21-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Meyer, Papadopoulos, Christianson,
and Birzer. Ans. 4-8.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in combining Meyer and Papadopoulos;
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Meyer teach “wherein the
processing circuit is further operable to cooperate with the at
least one communication circuit to obtain the building control
values from a second controller,” as recited in claim 26?
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 21
Appellants argue:
Papadopolous [sic] cannot be fairly read as providing any
reason to alter the Meyer architecture of providing Internet
access, (via a central control station), to implement the
Papadopolous [sic] architecture of providing internet access,
(via a field controller). Stated another way, Papadopolous [sic]
Appeal 2010-007617
Application 11/018,847

4
does not purport to teach a better way of providing Internet
access, it just purports to teach a way of providing Internet
access.
App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellants essentially argue that the Examiner has not provided
sufficient motivation to combine the references because it would be
inappropriate to rely upon a teaching of another reference when the primary
reference already provides that teaching, and there is no benefit or
improvement from combining the references. Id. First, we note that the
Examiner combined Meyer with Papadopoulous to teach that internet access
can be provided at a field controller rather than a central station. Ans. 8-9.
We disagree with Appellants argument that this teaching is located in
Meyer. Second, the Examiner articulates that the combination would “allow
for easy access over a commercial network such as the Internet to
information and data contained in an industrial control system having a
programmable logic controller.” Ans. 8 (citing Papadopoulos, 2:40-45). We
agree that the Examiner’s finding states and articulated reason with a
rational basis for combining the references. Lastly, we find that the
combination of Meyer with Papadopoulos is simply a combination of
familiar elements according to known methods which produce nothing more
than predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to combine Meyer and Papadopoulos.
Dependent Claim 26
Claim 26 recites “wherein the processing circuit is further operable to
cooperate with the at least one communication circuit to obtain the building
Appeal 2010-007617
Application 11/018,847

5
control values from a second controller.” Appellants also argue “nothing in
Meyer teaches that such controllers have access to data from other of such
controllers.” App. Br. 15.
However, Papadopoulos teaches that “the web server [on a field
controller] will have a unique global address 18, allowing it to be addressed
by other devices on the network.” Papadopoulos, 4:62-64. Therefore, other
devices, such as another field controller, can access the web server on the
field controller where building control values are stored. For this reason, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Meyer and Papadopoulos
teaches “wherein the processing circuit is further operable to cooperate with
the at least one communication circuit to obtain the building control values
from a second controller.” See Ans. 11.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21-40 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).

AFFIRMED
ke