Ex Parte Schreyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12525853 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/525,853 08/05/2009
138325 7590
PHILIPS LIGHTING BY
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
07/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oliver Schreyer
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.
2007P00283WOUS 2043
EXAMINER
STEVENS, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
kim.larocca@philips.com
jo.cangelosi@philips.com
Gigi.Miller@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVER SCHREYER, BOZENA ERDMANN,
ARMAND MICHEL MARIE LELKENS, ROBERT VAN
HERK, MARK HENRICUS VERBERKT, and
ENGEL JOHANNES KNIBBE
Appeal2014-007728
Application 12/525,853 1
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-11, 14, and 15. Appellants have previously canceled
claims 12 and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007728
Application 12/525,853
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed "invention relates in general to
networked control systems such as a complex lighting system and in
particular to the communication in such networked control systems."
Spec. 1, 11. 5-8.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis and labeling added to contested limitations):
1. Device for a networked control system including a
plurality of devices, the device comprising:
- a receiver for receiving a control logic code, [LI]
wherein the control logic code is a device specific software
program being a translation of a corresponding device
independent control logic program, wherein the control logic
code allows controlling a runtime behaviour of at least one
device of the plurality of devices;
- a runtime environment for executing the control logic
code; and
- [L2] a support logic being adaptable to the control
logic code, wherein the support logic provides a
communication link for exchanging state variables necessary
for executing the control logic code;
wherein the device is adapted to host the at least one
control logic code and to store local copies of all or of particular
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Feb. 7, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 7, 2014); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 7, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Sept. 12, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Aug. 5, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-007728
Application 12/525,853
external input state variables needed for the hosted control logic
code; and
wherein the device is adapted to store a subscription table
listing its internal state variables and corresponding other
devices of the networked control system that have these state
variables as input state variables; and/or
wherein the device is adapted to store for external output
state variables of the at least one hosted control logic code
addresses of corresponding other devices to which these state
variables belong.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Kaufman et al.
("Kaufman")
Krzyzanowski
Kreifeldt et al.
CKreifoldf i)
US 4,245,300 Jan. 13, 1981
US 7, 154,862 B2 Dec. 26, 2006
US 7,689,305 B2 Mar. 30, 2010
(filed Oct. 27, 2005)
Rejections on Appeal
RI. Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Krzyzanowski and Kreifeldt. Final Act. 3.
R2. Claims 10 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Krzyzanowski, Kreifeldt, and
Kaufman. Final Act. 16.
R3. Claims 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Krzyzanowski, Kreifeldt, and
Kaufman. Final Act. 17.
3
Appeal2014-007728
Application I2/525,853
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 4-I3), we decide the
appeal of obviousness Rejection RI of claims I-9 on the basis of
representative claim I.
Remaining claims IO, I I, I4, and I5 in rejections R2 and R3, not
argued separately, stand or fall with independent claim I from which they
depend.3
ISSUES
Appellants argue (App. Br. 4-I3; Reply Br. 2-I2) the Examiner's
rejection of claim I under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Krzyzanowski and Kreifeldt is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issues:
(a) Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests a device that has: (1) "a receiver" that receives "control
logic code" that meets limitation LI; and (2) "a support logic" that meets
limitation L2, as recited in claim I?
(b) Did the Examiner err in combining Krzyzanowski and Kreifeldt
in the manner suggested by the use of impermissible hindsight?
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2014-007728
Application 12/525,853
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-9,
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
Issue (a)
Limitation L2
Appellants contend Krzyzanowski does not teach or suggest limitation
L2 as found by the Examiner, but instead, "teaches a separate bridge device
that is not adaptable to the control logic code but only translates one
communication protocol to another." App. Br. 8.
The Examiner cites legacy bridges 224a and 224b in Krzyzanowski
(Final Act. 4 (citing Krzyzanowski Fig. 2; col. 6, 11. 63---65); and see Ans. 2
(citing Krzyzanowski col. 2, 11. 3-14, 43---64)) as examples of the claimed
"support logic," along with a discussion of "control logic," and "state
variables," and the uses of and interrelationships between these claimed
entities, including adaptability of program logic to execute commands
responsive to user input, as taught by Krzyzanowski.
We note Appellants have not cited to an explicit definition of "support
logic" (see App. Br. 3; and see Spec. 10, 11. 11-22; 11, 11. 11-23) in the
5
Appeal2014-007728
Application I2/525,853
Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. 4 Final
Act. 4--5; Ans. 2 (citing Krzyzanowski col. 2, 11. 3-I4, 43---64).
Therefore, lacking any evidence on this record that the Examiner's
interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellants'
Specification, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Krzyzanowski
teaches or at least suggests contested limitation L2.
Limitation LI
Appellants state contested limitation LI provides means by which "a
program can be written without accounting for the capabilities and resources
of the target device that is to execute the code ... [such that] the control
logic and its design process become simpler and more flexible." App. Br. 9.
Appellants argue Kreifeldt (col. I 8, 11. 33--43) does not teach or suggest
limitation LI, including the recited "receiver for receiving a control logic
code" because the cited passage "merely recites attaining attribute messages
'to obtain attributes ... associated with one or more [state variables] SV s,
objects, or virtual devices,"' and that "to assert that such 'attributes' would
include 'a device specific software program' as argued by the Examiner, is
contrary to the accepted meaning of the term." App. Br. I 0. Appellants also
contend Kreifeldt does not teach or suggest that the attributes disclosed in
4 Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the
specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood
by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform
Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., I33 F.3d I473, I477 (Fed. Cir. I998); see
also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d I379, I38I
(Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to
a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary
meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written
description.").
6
Appeal2014-007728
Application 12/525,853
the reference can operate as the devices "control logic code; device specific
software program or a device independent control logic program, or any
software program." App. Br. 11-12.
However, we agree with the Examiner's finding '"a device specific
software program[,]' as well as the modifying [of] control logic code is
equivalent to Kreifeldt's based control logic code program column 11, lines
42-57 which is manipulated by translation, i.e., using state variables used to
set the [equalizer] EQ, column 11, lines 42-57." Ans. 5. With respect to
Appellants' contention that Kreifeldt's parameters cannot be the device's
control logic code, etc., as quoted above, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as
the specific features of the control logic code are not recited in claim 1. Id.
The Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, the Krzyanowski reference
does teach or suggest that a state changes for state variables, control codes
and scripts for guiding device control at column 1 O; lines 8-21. Id.
Issue (b)
Motivation/Hindsight
Appellants merely argue, without evidentiary support or legal
argumentation, that "[i]n this case, Applicants believe that with regard to the
referred-to claims, the Examiner has impermissibly incorporated the
teachings of the present invention in the cited reference to reject the claims."
App. Br. 13. Appellants present no further arguments against the Examiner's
stated basis for the motivation to combine the references in the manner
suggested. We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention, especially
7
Appeal2014-007728
Application 12/525,853
lacking any arguments, with particularity, as to how the Examiner allegedly
erred.
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings
and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2-9, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
§ 103(a) Rejections R2 and R3 of Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to the obviousness rejection of claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 under§ 103 (see
App. Br. 13), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. We deem
arguments not made waived. 5
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may 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).
5 Appellants merely argue, "these claims depend from claim 1, which has
been shown to be allowable in view of the cited references." App. Br. 13.
8
Appeal2014-007728
Application 12/525,853
CONCLUSION 6
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI
through R3 of claims 1-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11, 14, and 15.
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
6 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner's attention to
dependent method claims 8-11, 14, and 15, which variously depend from
independent device claim 1, to ensure compliance with the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd.,
457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (dependent claim held invalid under
35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, for failing to "specify a further limitation
of the subject matter" of the claim to which it referred because it was
completely outside the scope of that claim).
9