Ex parte Takase

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2001

08593110 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TOSHIYUKI TAKASE
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 13.
The disclosed invention relates to a data logging
apparatus for use as control equipment in a facility or
machine.
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
A copy of the translation of this reference is attached.1
2
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
1. A data logging apparatus for use as control
equipment in a facility or machine, comprising:
a plurality of programmable logic controllers connected
to each other through communications links, one of said
programmable logic controllers being an administrative
programmable logic controller which includes a memory; and
a factory automation (FA) controller connected to said
administrative programmable logic controller through a
communications link,

said administrative programmable logic controller
executing a data logging program which accumulates in said
memory data generated by the administrative programmable logic
controller and data generated by others of said programmable
logic controllers, and which sends data accumulated in said
memory to said FA controller, such that said administrative
programmable logic controller acts as a buffer between said
plurality of programmable logic controllers and said FA
controller.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Burke 4,972,367 Nov. 20, 1990
Kabe 4201361 Aug. 6, 19921
(German Patent Application)
Claims 1 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Kabe in view of Burke.
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
On page 2556 of the excerpt from the Van Nostrand’s2
Scientific Encyclopedia attached to the reply brief, it is
noted that when PLCs are connected in a master/slave
3
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 13 is
sustained as to claims 1 and 5, and is reversed as to claims 2
through 4 and 6 through 13.
According to appellant (brief, page 6):
Independent claim 1 requires an administrative
programmable logic controller (ADPLC) which executes
a data logging program that accumulates in the
memory of the ADPLC, data generated by the ADPLC and
data generated by other programmable logic
controllers, and which sends the accumulated data to
an FA controller, such that the ADPLC acts as a
buffer between the FA controller and the other PLCs.
No combination of Kabe and Burke suggests an ADPLC
meeting these limitations.
Appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 6 through 9) to the
contrary notwithstanding, Kabe discloses (Figures 1 and 3) a
PLC master station 11 that acts as a buffer between the
programmable logic controllers 14 and 15 and the FA function
that is performed by the processing computer 3. The PLC
master station by virtue of its status as a master in a2
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
configuration in a network “there is only one master PLC. The
master sends commands out to the other slave PLCs, and they
respond appropriately. The slaves on the network never
initiate their own commands--they always respond to what the
master commands them to do.” At page 2551, the same excerpt
clearly shows that PLCs have memory.
4
master/slave relationship performs a data logging function
when it receives, stores and retransmits data that flows back
and forth between the FA and the PLCs (translation, pages 3,
4, 7 and 9). Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claim
1 is sustained because all of the limitations of claim 1 read
on the teachings of Kabe. In affirming a multiple reference
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board may rely on less
than the total number of references relied on by the examiner.
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA
1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444,
n.2 (CCPA 1966). The teachings of Burke are merely cumulative
to those found in Kabe.
The obviousness rejection of claim 5 is sustained pro
forma because appellant has not presented any arguments
challenging the propriety of the examiner’s rejection of this
claim.
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
5
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claim 2, the
examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 5) that “the
applicant’s program data preparing means is taught by the
application programs stored in the cell controlling computer
40 of Burke.”
A review of Burke does not reveal such a program data
preparing means that functions in the manner set forth in
claim 2. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claim 2 and its
dependent claims 3 and 6 through 13 is reversed because we
agree with the appellant (brief, page 10) that “Kabe and Burke
simply do not disclose or suggest the data logging programs
and the program data preparing means required by claim 2.”
Turning lastly to claim 4, the obviousness rejection of
this claim is reversed because we can not find any evidence of
a “logging setting means for setting a trigger condition
section and a processing section in the FA controller, wherein
said logging setting means is set in a ladder format” in the
teachings and suggestions of Kabe, and because the examiner’s
rejection does not specifically address this claim.
DECISION
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
6
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as to claims 1 and 5,
and is reversed as to claims 2 through 4 and 6 through 13.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
7
lp
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
8
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MCPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202
Leticia
Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ LALL
APJ SMITH JERRY
DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s):

Prepared: May 20, 2002
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT