Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

13876804 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/876,804 08/07/2013
24972 7590 09/20/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ralph Schmidt
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.
BOSC.P8048US/1000355172 4140
EXAMINER
HUYNH,KIMT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RALPH SCHMIDT,
EKO-BONO SUPRIJADI,
ECKART SCHLOTTMANN, and
CHRISTIAN ASTOR
Appeal2018-002764
Application 13/876,804 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, KAL YANK. DESHPANDE,
and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ralph Schmidt et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 16-30. See App. Br. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 The Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH as the real-party-in-interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002764
Application 13/876,804
We REVERSE. 2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention concerns methods for "automatically allocating
addresses to at least two similar users of a communication bus system by a
coordinating master control unit." Spec. 1 :2-5. Claims 16, 29, and 30 are
independent. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
16. A method for allocating addresses in a
communication bus system having at least one master bus user
and slave bus users, comprising:
initiating, by the master bus user, an address allocation
via a query message sent to all bus users;
responding, by each slave bus user which has already
been assigned an address, to the query message by transmitting
a message at the assigned address;
responding, by each slave bus user which has not yet
been assigned an address, to the query message by (i) enabling
transmission on the bus without collisions, and (ii) transmitting
a serial number of the slave bus user to the master bus user,
wherein all bits of the serial number are sent in a single
transmission in response to the query;
assigning, by the master bus user, an address to each
slave bus user which has not yet been assigned an address after
2 Our Decision references the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
July 28, 2017), the Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed January 16,
2018), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 16, 2017) and the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Nov. 4, 2016).
2
Appeal2018-002764
Application 13/876,804
receipt of the serial number, wherein the assigned address is
used for further communication on the bus; and
recognizing, by the master bus user, when all slave bus
users have successfully been assigned an address.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ellerbrock
Ricci
US 2007 /0088885 Al
US 2013/0282946 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
Apr. 19, 2007
Oct. 24, 2013
claims 16-22, 24--26, and 28-30 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
being anticipated by Ellerbrock; and
claims 23 and 27 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellerbrock and Ricci.
ANALYSIS
Claims 16-22, 24-26, and 28-30
Independent claim 16 recites "responding, by each slave bus user
which has not yet been assigned an address, to the query message by ...
transmitting a serial number of the slave bus user to the master bus user."
Independent claim 16 further requires that "all bits of the serial number are
sent in a single transmission in response to the query" ( emphasis added).
Independent claims 29 and 30 recite similar limitations.
3
Appeal2018-002764
Application 13/876,804
The Examiner cites to paragraphs 36 and 40 of Ellerbrock as
disclosing this limitation. Final Act. 5, 10, 12-13. The Examiner finds that
Ellerbrock teaches that
in response to the command from the bus controller, any
additional devices that have been added will respond to the bus
controller by using a message or signal ... associated with UUID
code[ ] (paragraph 36, i.e., manufacture identity is typically
referred to as the universal unique identifier code) across the
network bus, wherein the UUID is implies a serial number of the
device.
Id. at 4--5.
Ellerbrock teaches that the "[ t ]he manufacture identity is a unique
aspect of each device" and "is typically referred to as the Universal Unique
Identifier (UUID) code," which is "an 80-bit code stored in each of the
network devices." Ellerbrock ,r 36. Ellerbrock further discloses the
following:
In response to the command from the bus controller, any
additional network devices that have been added since the last
assignment oflogical addresses will respond to the bus controller
across the network bus using a pulse, message[,] or other similar
signal. If the bus controller receives a signal that new network
devices have been added, (see step 120), the bus controller of the
present invention can then assign a unique logical address to each
of the new network devices replacing the common null address
. . . . In other words, the bus controller of the present invention
evaluates the UUID code associated with each new network
device. As each newly added network device is identified by the
bus controller in the UUID competition through process of
elimination, the bus controller assigns a unique logical address
to the network device.
Id. ,r 40 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue (App. Br. 4) that the Examiner does not cite to
any disclosure in Ellerbrock that describes a transmission of all 80 bits
4
Appeal2018-002764
Application 13/876,804
of a UUID code by a network device to a bus controller. In response,
the Examiner, referring to Ellerbrock paragraph 40, states "[i]n
response to the command from the bus controller, any additional
network devices that have been added since the last assignment of
logical addresses will respond to the bus controller across the network
bus using a pulse, message[,] or other similar signal." Ans. 12. The
Examiner finds that the "communication of logical address" is
assigned based on the UUID, corresponding to the claimed "serial
number," which is sent in a single transmission in response to the
query. Id.
We disagree with the Examiner because Ellerbrock's disclosure
does not support the Examiner's finding that Ellerbrock's network
device's UUID is sent in a single transmission. Ellerbrock discloses
that newly added network devices respond to the bus controller "using
a pulse, message[,] or other similar signal." Ellerbrock ,r 40. This
disclosure does not substantiate the Examiner's finding that the
network device sends the bus controller its 80-bit UUID, or its null
address associated with the UUID, or that it is sent "in a single
transmission," as required by claim 16. See Reply Br. 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16, 29, and 30,
and claims 17-22, 24--26, and 28, dependent thereon, under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ellerbrock.
Claims 23 and 27
The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 27, which depend indirectly
from claim 16, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ellerbrock and Ricci. See Final Act. 14. Ricci does not cure the deficiencies
5
Appeal2018-002764
Application 13/876,804
discussed above with respect to claim 16, nor does the Examiner refer to
Ricci to cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 27
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellerbrock and
Ricci.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 16-30 is reversed.
REVERSED
6