Ex Parte Ruehl et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613466261 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/466,261 05/08/2012 Martin Ruehl 812774 5655 95683 7590 12/27/2016 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900 180 North Stetson Avenue Chicago, IL 60601-6731 EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): chgpatent @ ley dig. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN RUEHL, KARSTEN KRUEGEL, and BJOERN MUELLER Appeal 2016-001363 Application 13/466,2611 Technology Center 2100 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN D. HAMANN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 7, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a configuration tool for configuring a model of a technical system on a computer having a display.” 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “dSPACE digital signal processing and control engineering GmbH.” App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-001363 Application 13/466,261 Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A configuration device, comprising: a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for configuring a model of a technical system and displaying the model on a display connected to a computer; wherein the model includes at least two model components, each model component having at least one port; wherein each model component is displayable in an expanded component representation and a reduced component representation on the display, the expanded component representation including display of the at least one port of the model component and the reduced component representation not including the display of the at least one port of the model component; wherein each model component is displayable in an expanded line representation and a reduced line representation on the display, independently of whether the model component is displayed in the expanded component representation or the reduced component representation, the expanded line representation including display of at least one port association line from the at least one port of the model component, and the reduced line representation including display of a component association line from a reduced port of the model component without display of any port association lines from the at least one port of the model component; and wherein, for a model component displayed in the expanded component representation and in the reduced line representation, the at least one port of the model component is displayed without any corresponding port association lines while the reduced port of the model component is displayed with a corresponding component association line. 2 Appeal 2016-001363 Application 13/466,261 REJECTION ON APPEAL2 The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Biermann et al. (US 2008/0091279 Al; published Apr. 17, 2008) (hereinafter “Biermann”).3 DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether Biermann discloses displaying a model component in an expanded component and a reduced line representation,4 in accordance with claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellants argue Biermann only discloses displaying model components in either (i) an entirely expanded form or (ii) an entirely reduced form, but not in mixed form (e.g., an expanded component representation and a reduced line representation) in accordance with the claims. App. Br. 8—9 (citing Biermann Figs. 1—10). 2 The Examiner withdrew the § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1—5, 7, and 9. Ans. 2. 3 The Examiner also provisionally rejected claim 1 for obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of copending Application No. 13/957,463. No patent has issued yet from that copending Application, nor do Appellants present arguments addressing this provisional rejection. We find it is premature to address this provisional rejection. See Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 4 Appellants similarly argue Biermann fails to disclose displaying a model component in a reduced component representation and an expanded line representation. App. Br. 8—9. In light of our findings, we need not reach this argument. 3 Appeal 2016-001363 Application 13/466,261 For an expanded component and a reduced line representation, the individual ports of the model component are displayed and component association lines between connected model components are displayed while port association lines between individual ports are not shown. See App. Br. 8 (citing bottom half of Figs. 1 and 2); see also App. Br. 11 (reciting for claim 1 for this disputed representation that “the at least one port of the model component is displayed without any corresponding port association lines while the reduced port of the model component is displayed with a corresponding component association line”). This concept is illustrated in the bottom half of Appellants’ Figure 1, reproduced below. 4a 4c 6b 4b i 4d Cl .. i- \ m C3 3a in 1 Out 1 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation