Ex Parte Simon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

13221436 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/221,436 08/30/2011 Olaf Simon
26646 7590 06/02/2016
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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.
12604/43A 3531
EXAMINER
DANG,KHANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
uspto@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLAF SIMON
Appeal2014-010015
Application 13/221,436
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 19-35 and 39--41, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Claims 1-18 and 36-38 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies SEW-EURODRIVE GmbH & Co. KG as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-010015
Application 13/221,436
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method for assigning addresses
to the nodes of a bus system.
Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
19. A bus system, comprising:
an assigning entity;
a plurality of bus nodes;
a bus interconnecting the assigning entity and the plurality
of bus nodes, the plurality of bus nodes furnished with delivery
addresses, wherein
(i) the assigning entity is configured to send
information to the delivery addresses via the
bus, the information including a first address;
(ii) a first bus node of the plurality of bus nodes is
configured to detect an effect of a performing
of an at least one action of a plurality of
predefined actions, wherein for each of the
plurality of bus nodes, a different kind of
action of the plurality of predefined actions is
assigned for use as action to each bus node;
(iii) the first bus node is configured to accept the
first address in response to the detection;
(iv) the first bus node is configured to send a
response to the assigning entity; and
(i) to (iv) are repeated each time with a further address for
a further bus node.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Hinrichs et al. US 2001/0044860 Al Nov. 22, 2001
Mayer US 6,915,171 B2 July 5, 2005
2
Appeal2014-010015
Application 13/221,436
Bomhoff et al.
Simon
US 2006/0106952 Al May 18, 2006
US 8,010,714 B2 Aug. 30, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 19-23, 26, and 39--41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hinrichs. Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 24, 25, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hinrichs in view of Mayer. Final Act. 6-7, 13.
Claims 27-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hinrichs in view of Bomhoff. Final Act. 7-13.
Claims 19-35 and 39--41 stand rejected under on the grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-24 of Simon. Final Act. 14--15.
ANALYSIS
\Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We disagree
with Appellant's arguments regarding the pending claims.
Nonstatutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting
The Examiner rejected claims 19-35 and 39--41 on the grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-24 of Simon. Final Act. 14--15. Because Appellant has not
identified any errors in the Examiners findings, we summarily affirm the
3
Appeal2014-010015
Application 13/221,436
rejection. Ax parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
Prior Art Rejections
Appellant argues Hinrichs does not disclose "for each of the plurality
of bus nodes, a different kind of action of the plurality of predefined actions
is assigned for use as action to each bus node," as recited in claim 19. App.
Br. 3. According to Appellant, although Hinrichs discloses different types
of comparisons for assigning address in a bus, because the address is based
on a "comparison," Hinrichs requires at least two of the units to have the
same type of action:
That is, according to Hinrichs et al., while different types of
comparisons (e.g., current flow, magnitude of current flow,
current consumption, resistance, etc.) may be used which
ultimately result in an address assignment, at least two units of
the plurality of units must have the same type of action assigned
so that a comvarison could be made between the at least two
units (see, e.g., paragraph [0012] of Hinrichs et al.). This is
because to make a comparison, according to Hinrichs et al., it is
required that the actions being compared are the same type of
action.
App. Br. 4. Appellant also argues although current consumption and current
flow are different actions, a variation in current flow involves the same
action. Id.
The Examiner finds Hinrichs discloses a plurality of different actions
are used to assign addresses to different bus nodes. Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Hinrichs i-fi-15-20, 25-30). For example, the Examiner finds Hinrichs
discloses selecting which node of a pair of nodes is selected based on the
polarization of the DC power supply and the different actions needed to
4
Appeal2014-010015
Application 13/221,436
generate that power supply. Ans. 8-9. Similarly, the Examiner finds
Hinrichs discloses assigning bus addresses based on the different actions
required to generate different magnitude of current generated by the DC
supply unit. Ans. 9-10.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding under the broadest
reasonable interpretation that Hinrichs discloses the disputed claim
limitation.
Contrary to Appellant's argument, not all of the Examiner's findings
are based on a comparison of two different measurements. For example, as
the Examiner finds, which node is addressed can be based on the
polarization of the operating voltage. Hinrichs i-fi-f 17, 36, 37. Such a
determination is based not on a comparison of two different voltages but a
determination if the voltage polarity is positive or negative. See id.
Because, contrary to Appellant's argument, the Examiner's findings
regarding polarization are not based on a comparison but, instead, on two
different actions-the creation of a positive polarity and the creation of a
negative polarity (see Ans. 8-9}-Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues "nowhere does the Examiner
explain how these differences or how these actions result in the acceptance
of a respective address in response to the detection of these actions, which is
also required by the claims." Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted).
5
Appeal2014-010015
Application 13/221,436
However, Appellant did not raise that argument---or any discussion of
that limitation-in the Appeal Brief. See App. Br. 2--4. Because
Appellant's argument was presented for the first time in the reply brief, it
has been waived. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.,
469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of
good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly
presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the principal
brief on appeal); 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2) (same).2
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19, along
with the rejections of claims 20-23, 26, and 39--41, which are not argued
separately.
With respect to dependent claims 24, 25, and 27-35, Appellant merely
contends because the additional references used in the rejections of these
claims (Mayer and Bomhoft) do not cure the deficiencies in claim 19, the
Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims.
App. Br. 4--5. Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated
with claim 19 for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of
these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
19-23, 26, and 37--41 as being anticipated.
2 We note that contrary to Appellant's argument, the Examiner made
findings on the acceptance of a respective address limitation in the Final
Action. Final Act. 4.
6
Appeal2014-010015
Application 13/221,436
For the above reasons, we atlirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
24, 25, and 27-35 as being obvious.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
19-35 and 39--41 on the grounds of obviousness-type double patenting.
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
7