Ex Parte Schade et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 201713988176 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017) 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. 13/988,176 06/26/2013 Kai Schade 14423-089 1034 (P12579-US-PCT) 80711 7590 BGL/Ann Arbor 524 South Main Street Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 EXAMINER MEHRMANESH, ELMIRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2113 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2017 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 KAI SCHADE, PETER ZIMMERSCHITT-HALBIG, and ANDREAS HEISE Appeal 2017-005414 Application 13/988,176 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a microprocessor system for executing at least partially safety-critical software modules. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A microprocessor system for executing at least partially safety-critical software modules as part of the control Appeal 2017-005414 Application 13/988,176 or regulation of functions or tasks which are associated with the software modules, which microprocessor system comprises, at least one first inherently safe microprocessor module having at least two microprocessor cores, at least one second inherently safe microprocessor module having at least two microprocessor cores, wherein the first and second microprocessor modules are connected by means of a bus system, the software modules including a first and a second software module having at least partially overlapping functions including identical functions that are distributed over the first and the second microprocessor modules, and means for comparing or arbitrating the results produced with the first and second software modules for the identical functions for the purpose of recognizing a software fault or a hardware fault. Reference and Rejection Claims 1—16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bogenberger (US 2011/0066779 Al; published Mar. 17, 2011). ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below.1 1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2). 2 Appeal 2017-005414 Application 13/988,176 On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. Appellants contend Bogenberger does not disclose “the software modules including a first and a second software module having at least partially overlapping functions including identical functions that are distributed over the first and the second microprocessor modules,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 6—10; Reply Br. 2—5. In particular, Appellants assert Bogenberger’s paragraph 28 “discloses an exact overlap (synchronized mode) or executing different programs (non- synchronized mode) but not a partial overlap as claimed.” App. Br. 8. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. It is well established that during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 1 recites “at least partially overlapping functions,” not merely “partially overlapping functions,” as Appellants assert (App. Br. 8). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “at least partially overlapping functions” encompasses completely overlapping functions. That interpretation is also consistent with paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Specification, which Appellants cite for supporting the disputed limitation. See App. Br. 3; Spec. 26—27. Because Appellants acknowledge Bogenberger’s paragraph 28 “discloses an exact overlap (synchronized mode),” Appellants have not 3 Appeal 2017-005414 Application 13/988,176 shown the Examiner’s mapping based on Bogenberger’s paragraph 28 is incorrect.2 We note in reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments Appellants actually raised. Arguments that Appellants did not make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2—16, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16. 2 In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner cites Bogenberger’s paragraph 23 and other paragraphs for an alternative mapping. See Ans. 7— 9. Because as discussed above, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s mapping based on Bogenberger’s paragraph 28, the Examiner’s alternative mapping is unnecessary. We note Appellants’ response to the alternative mapping (Reply Br 2—4) is not directed to the Examiner’s mapping based on Bogenberger’s paragraph 28, and does not show Examiner error based on that paragraph. 4 Appeal 2017-005414 Application 13/988,176 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation