Ex Parte Skrodzki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 8, 201612970351 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/970,351 12/16/2010 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 06/10/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Axel Skrodzki 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. H0026802/8364/l 12718/3220 5944 EXAMINER BUGG, GEORGE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/10/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AXEL SKRODZKI, FRIEDHELM KRAMER, MICHAEL GASTHUYS, and HUBERT WILLMS Appeal2014-007152 Application 12/97 0,3 51 Technology Center 2600 Before ADAM J. PYONIN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-007152 Application 12/97 0,3 51 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure is directed to alarm "systems which incorporate redundant communications channels to compensate for communications failures between, or, in selected system modules." Spec. ,-r 1. Claims 1, 13, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. A monitoring system comprising: a common control unit; supplemental units displaced from the control unit; a multi-conductor bus structure including a first conductor providing a first power supply and a second conductor providing a second power supply; a primary communications bus of the multi-conductor bus structure extending between control unit and at least some of the supplemental units; and at least one supplemental communications bus of the multi-conductor bus structure which extends between the control unit and at least some of the supplemental units where the primary communication bus and supplemental communication bus are established via different conductors of the multi- conductor bus and where the supplemental bus is activated in response to at least one of, a sensed failure of one of the units, or, a sensed failure associated with the primary communications bus. References and Rejections1 Claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haley (US 7,861,110 B2; Dec. 28, 2010) and Voegeli (US 6,651,178 Bl; Nov. 18, 2003). Final Act. 3. 1 The Examiner also objects to the drawings under 37 CPR§ 1.83(a). See Final Act. 2. We do not consider such objections. See, e.g., MPEP § 706.01. 2 Appeal2014-007152 Application 12/97 0,3 51 Claims 3, 8-12, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haley, Voegeli, and Shrode (US 7,852,209 B2; Dec. 14, 2010). Final Act. 9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 11-15) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. The Teachings of Haley and Voegeli Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, because, "[ w ]hile Haley et al. may receive signals from either bus 210 or 220, Haley et al. always transmits signals on both busses 210, 220." App. Br. 6. Appellants further argue that Voegeli only teaches separate power and communication buses, therefore the references do not teach or suggest the recited "multi-conductor bus structure," nor do they "meet the claim limitation 'where the supplemental bus is activated in response to at least one of, a sensed failure of one of the units, or, a sensed failure associated with the primary communications bus."' Id. at 7; see also Reply Br. 3. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, claim 1 recites "the supplemental bus is activated," but does not define the state of the supplemental bus prior to 3 Appeal2014-007152 Application 12/97 0,3 51 being activated.2 Further, Appellants' Specification describes that, "[i]n the event of a malfunction, the primary side processor activates the redundant alarm detection path. It does this by switching the bus master to a redundant power supply." Spec. i-f 16 (emphasis added). Thus, we find the Examiner reasonably construed the claim limitations to encompass the cited references, because "Haley discloses a system where if a bus [is] non- functional, then the system triggers a bus switching mechanism." Ans. 13; see also Haley i-f 8:60-67 ("if the fault does render the bus non-functional ... [this] can trigger the bus switching mechanism in the interface logic of those nodes ... using the new bus, all the other nodes in the system will be able to communicate normally with each other"). Further, we agree with the Examiner that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the [power bus with multiple conductors] teachings of Voegeli into the system of Haley[,] to incorporate a multiple conducting bus to safely manage and address components that may demand multiple voltages." Ans. 14; see also Voegeli 3:35--40, 4:22-31; Haley Fig. 2A (depicting redundant busses 210 and 220). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the disputed limitations are taught or suggested by the combination of Haley and Voegeli. 2 Separately, we note claim 1 is an apparatus claim, as is independent claim 15. In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner and Appellants may wish to review these claims to determine if recited method limitations render the claims effectively hybrid apparatus/method claims, which the Federal Circuit has held are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641F.3d1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding apparatus claim reciting active transmitting step indefinite). 4 Appeal2014-007152 Application 12/97 0,3 51 B. Reasoning to Combine Haley and Voegeli Appellants argue the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1, for the reasons discussed in Section A, supra, and because "none of the cited references of Haley et al. or Voegeli et al. recognize the problem solved by the claimed invention ... there would be no reason to combine the cited references." App. Br. 9-10. We do not find these arguments persuasive. We note the Supreme Court has stated that it is error to "look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve," as "[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Other than presenting a "problem solved" by the claimed invention, Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 4. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 14. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. We are similarly not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of independent claims 13 and 15, at least for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appellants advance no further argument on dependent claims 2-12, 14, and 16-20; thus, we sustain the Examiner rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. 5 Appeal2014-007152 Application 12/97 0,3 51 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation