Ex Parte Sanders et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

13272442 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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.
13/272,442 10/13/2011 Adam M. Sanders P015044-RD-MJL 4314
72823 7590
Quinn Law Group, PLLC
21500 Haggerty Road
Suite 300
Northville, MI 48167
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, BAO LONG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
amb@quinnlawgroup.com
U S Docketing @ quinnlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM M. SANDERS, MATTHEW J. REILAND,
DOUGLAS MARTIN LINN, and NATHANIEL QUILLIN
Appeal 2015-004698
Application 13/272,442
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—17. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-004698
Application 13/272,442
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of optimizing control of a machine
having a plurality of capabilities, the method comprising:
connecting a human-to-machine interface device to the
machine, wherein the human-to-machine interface device includes a
plurality of capabilities;
selecting a task to be performed by the machine;
identifying the plurality of capabilities of the machine and the
plurality of capabilities of the human-to-machine interface device; and
displaying a specific one of a plurality of different pre-defmed
control interfaces, for entering data into a controller, on the human-to-
machine interface device, based upon the selected task to be
performed, the identified plurality of capabilities of the human-to-
machine interface device, and the identified plurality of capabilities of
the machine to optimize the control of the machine.
REJECTIONS
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite.
Claims 1—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Braun (US 7,668,605 B2, iss. Feb. 23, 2010), Touchard (US 7,068,857
Bl, iss. June 27, 2006), PC Magazine Encyclopedia, viewed July 8, 2015 at
http://www.pcmag.com/ encyclopedia/term/5711 O/x-button, and Microsoft
Windows Tutorial — Lesson 6: Anatomy of a Window, viewed July 9, 2014
at https://web .archive.org/web/20090219203950/http://functionx.com/
windows/Lesson06.htm.
Claims 11—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Braun, Touchard, PC Magazine Encyclopedia, Microsoft Windows
Tutorial, and Sanders (US 2011/0071672 Al, pub. Mar. 24, 2011). Ans. 7—
8; see Final Act. 17—29; Appeal Br. 13.
2
Appeal 2015-004698
Application 13/272,442
ANALYSIS
Claims 3 and 4 for indefiniteness
The Examiner found that the limitation “identifying the capabilities of
the machine” in claim 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner found that “identifying the capabilities of the human-
to-machine interface device” in claim 4 also lacks sufficient antecedent
basis. Id.
We appreciate the Examiner’s detailed analysis. Nonetheless, we
agree with Appellants that claim 1 provides sufficient antecedent basis for
these limitations. Appeal Br. 9. Claim 1 recites a “method of optimizing
control of a machine having a plurality of capabilities” by “identifying the
plurality of capabilities of the machine” (emphasis added). Claim 3 recites
“[a] method as set forth in claim 1 wherein identifying the capabilities of the
machine include identifying a total number of degrees of freedom of the
machine” and other steps (emphasis added). Therefore, claim 1 recites “a
machine having a plurality of capabilities,” and “identifying the plurality of
capabilities of the machine,” but claim 3 recites “identifying the capabilities
of the machine” without explicit reference to "the plurality of capabilities of
the machine” as in claim 1. See Ans. 2—3 (emphasis added). Nonetheless,
we find that a skilled artisan would understand that “the capabilities of the
machine” in claim 3 refers to “the plurality of capabilities of the machine”
recited in claim 1 (emphasis added) for its antecedent basis when interpreted
in light of Appellants’ Specification, which describes that identifying the
capabilities of the machine means that the machine has multiple capabilities.
See Spec. H 5, 7, 16, 23, 27, 29, 30.
3
Appeal 2015-004698
Application 13/272,442
A similar analysis applies to “identifying the capabilities of the
human-to-machine interface device” in claim 4, which finds its antecedent
basis in claim l’s recital of “identifying ... the plurality of capabilities of
the human-to-machine interface device.” Appellants describe this interface
device as having multiple capabilities. See id. Tffl 5—7, 23, 27, 29, 30.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4 as indefinite.
Claims 1—10 as unpatentable over Braun, Touchard,
PC Magazine Encyclopedia, and Microsoft Windows Tutorial
Appellants argue claims 1—10 as a group. Appeal Br. 9—13. We
select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 2—10
stand or fall with claim 1. Resolution of the rejection of claim 1 turns on
claim construction of “displaying a specific one of a plurality of different
pre-defmed interfaces, for entering data into a controller . . . based upon . . .
the identified plurality of capabilities of the human-to-machine interface
device.” We interpret this limitation to mean that one of more than one
different, pre-defmed interfaces is displayed based on identified capabilities
of the human-to-machine interface device that is connected to the machine.
This meaning is consistent with the language of the claim, which
recites that “the human-to-machine interface device includes a plurality of
capabilities” and these capabilities are identified such that a specific one of
plural, different pre-defmed control interfaces for the human-to-machine
interface device is displayed based on these identified capabilities. In other
words, the specific control interface that is displayed is one that comports
with the identified plurality of capabilities of the human-to-machine
interface and the machine. Claim 1 does not require different pre-defmed
control interfaces to be based on different human-to-machine interfaces.
4
Appeal 2015-004698
Application 13/272,442
This construction also is consistent with Appellants’ Specification,
which describes the human-to-machine interface device 48 any one of a
standard industrial robotic controller 24, a tablet, an electronic notebook, a
laptop computer, a desktop computer (with mouse, keyboard, etc.), or some
other similar device. Spec. 121. Appellants also disclose each of these
interfaces has different capabilities to display configuration parameters such
that a desktop computer may have a control interface that displays more
configuration parameters than a standard industrial robotic controller that
has lower levels of input and display capabilities. Id. H 24, 29. The control
interface is optimized for each of the interface devices. Id. H 23, 24.
The Examiner’s finding that Braun teaches these claimed features is
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 5—8; Ans. 4—7. In this
regard, Braun teaches a human-to-machine interface device (wireless user
interface 70) that allows a user to control a machine (e.g., motor 35) using a
plurality of control interfaces that are illustrated at Figures 3—13 and selected
based on the task to be performed (i.e., the machine or motor function to be
controlled) and the capabilities of the wireless user interface 70, in the sense
that the pre-defmed control interfaces are optimized for the capabilities of
wireless user interface 70 as opposed to the different capabilities of human-
to-machine interface 25, which provides an operator interface for operating
industrial control system 10 to perform automated industrial processes using
conventional functionality. Braun, 3:54—4:5, 8:27—30, 9:44-46, Figs. 1, 2.
Thus, Braun teaches wireless user interface 70 as an alternate interface to
human-to-machine interface 25. Braun also teaches more than one such
control interface displayed on wireless user interface 70. See id., Figs. 3—13.
5
Appeal 2015-004698
Application 13/272,442
Appellants acknowledge that Braun’s human-to-machine interface
displays a control interface based on the capabilities of the machine. Appeal
Br. 10. Appellants argue that the control interface displayed is the same on
different human-to-machine interface devices because Braun does not teach
changing the image depending on the particular human-to-machine interface
device used and its identified capabilities. Id. at 10-11. This argument is
not persuasive in view of Braun’s teaching of different human-to-machine
interface devices 25, 70 with different capabilities and control interfaces as
discussed above. The Examiner also relies on Touchard to teach the step of
identifying the capabilities of different human-to-machine interface devices
and selecting a control interface based on these capabilities. Final Act. 9. In
this regard, Touchard teaches that storage server 20 provides images for
display on a user interface based on the capabilities of the interface for that
particular device. Touchard, 2:63—4:10. Appellants’ arguments do not
address these findings of the Examiner for Touchard.
Finally, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1. Effectively, Appellants ask us to interpret “displaying a specific
one of a plurality of different pre-defmed control interfaces” to require each
of the pre-defmed control interfaces to be customized for use on a different
human-to-machine interface device. We decline to read such limitations into
claim 1. Nor does claim 1 require different pre-defmed control interfaces to
be displayed for different human-to-machine devices based on the different
capabilities of more than one machine. We decline to read such unclaimed
features from the Specification into claim 1 when the language is broader in
the absence of a lexicographic definition or disavowal, which have not been
asserted by Appellants in this case.
6
Appeal 2015-004698
Application 13/272,442
Claim 1 requires the display of one of a plurality of different and pre­
defined control interfaces based, inter alia, on the identified capabilities of
the human-to-machine interface. Braun teaches this feature. Different pre­
defined control interfaces are illustrated in Figures 3—13 of Braun. The user
interfaces are used to control different tasks for different machines based on
the capabilities of wireless user interface 70, rather than on the capabilities
of human-to-machine interface 25, for example. Braun teaches that control
interface 154 is pre-defmed and is selected for wireless user interface 70 to
control an attached device such as motor 35 in a way that is similar to the
control provided conventionally by human-to-machine interface 25. Braun,
9:44—55, 6:22-7:44, Fig. 11.
Moreover, the Examiner also relies on Touchard to teach the step of
“identifying the plurality of capabilities of the human-to-machine interface
device.” Final Act. 9. Appellants’ arguments have not apprised us of error
in these findings, which are supported by a preponderance of evidence. See
Touchard, 2:44—5:48; Final Act. 9.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—10.
Claims 11—17 as unpatentable over Braun, Touchard,
PC Magazine Encyclopedia, Microsoft Windows Tutorial, and Sanders
Appellants argue that dependent claim 11, and independent claims 12
and 17 are patentable at least because neither Braun nor Touchard teaches
the display of one of a plurality of pre-defmed control interfaces based on
the identified capabilities of the human-to-machine interface device, as
recited in claims 1, 12, and 17. Appeal Br. 13. These arguments are not
persuasive at least for the reasons discussed above for claim 1. Thus, we
sustain the rejections of claims 11—17.
7
Appeal 2015-004698
Application 13/272,442
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 4 for indefiniteness.
We affirm the prior art rejections of claims 1—17.
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
8