Ex Parte Vetter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

13307409 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/307,409 11/30/2011 Immanuel Vetter GUNZ3004/FJD 5322
23364 7590 01/04/2017
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
LUU, CUONG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
MAIL @B ACONTHOMAS .COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IMMANUEL VETTER and MICHAEL GUNZERT1
Appeal 2015-007248
Application 13/307,409
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 15—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
“The invention relates to a method for implementing at least one
additional function of a field device in automation technology, wherein the
1 Appellants identify Codewrights GmbH as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007248
Application 13/307,409
field device is parametered and/or configured via a servicing device using
device descriptions.” Spec. 1.
Representative Claim
Claim 15, reproduced below, is representative.
15. A method for implementing at least one additional
function of a field device in automation technology, wherein the
field device is parametered and/or configured via a servicing
device using a device description, wherein the method
comprises the following steps:
an electronic device description defined according to the
standard IEC 61804-2, which describes the field device, is
made available;
the electronic device description is expanded by a script
or a supplemental device description fragment, wherein the
script or the supplemental device description fragment
describes the additional function; and
the field device is serviced from the servicing device
using the expanded electronic device description and is able to
execute the additional function.
Rejections2
The Examiner rejects claims 15—18, 20-23, 26, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over DeGroot (US 2005/0071522 Al;
March 31, 2005) and Zielinski (M. Zielinski, Digital Fieldbus Installation
2 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-007248
Application 13/307,409
Use EDDL Technology for Simplicity with Advanced, Full Functionality)?
Final Act. 4—9.
The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over DeGroot, Zielinski, and Jahl (US 2009/0177970 Al; July 9,
2009). Final Act. 8.
The Examiner rejects claims 24, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over DeGroot, Zielinski, and Isenmann
(US 2008/0320402 Al; Dec. 25, 2008). Final Act. 8-9.
The Examiner rejects claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over DeGroot, Zielinski, and Zheng (L. Zheng, H. Nakagawa, OPC
(OLE for Process Control) Specification and its Developments, Proceedings
of the 41st SICE Annual Conference (SICE 2002, Aug. 5—7, 2002, Osaka),
Vol. 2, pp. 917-920 (DOE 10.1109/SICE.2002.1195286)). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious, in view of
Zielinski, to implement DeGroot’s program parts A and B according to
IEC 61804-2. Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 2—3. The Examiner further finds that
parts A and B would collectively constitute an expanded electronic device
description as claimed, part A would constitute the electronic device
3 The Zielinski reference appears to be a draft of the following journal
article: M. Zielinski, Digital fieldbus installations use EDDL technology for
simplicity with advanced, full functionality, IEEE Computer and Control
Engineering, Vol. 15, Issue 6 (Dec. 2004), pp. 24—31 (DOE 10.1049/
cce:20040610). Our analysis and citations reference the draft as contained
within the present application’s file wrapper.
3
Appeal 2015-007248
Application 13/307,409
description (before expansion) as claimed, and part B would constitute the
expanding script (expanding the description) as claimed. Id. Applying the
above, the Examiner reads the claimed field device and service device
respectively on DeGroot’s field device and operating device. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because:
In contra[s]t to [DeGroof s program parts,] a device description
according to the standard IEC 6180-2 is written as a plain text
and as a result of that not executable per se. Moreover,
DeGroot teaches away from the present patent application since
in paragraph [0015], second sentence is written that “the
operating device has available the full functionality of the field
device without the use of device description.” Therefore, a
person skilled in the art would not take DeGroot into
consideration for solving his problem of “providing an upgrade
to the original device descriptions in a simple manner so that
they reliably fulfill desired additional fimctions[]” [(Spec. 4).]
The invention begins with a known standard, IEC 61804-2 [,
w]hich is then modified in that a script or supplemental device
description fragment is used. DeGroot does not start with the
noted standard[ and], therefore, it can not be modified.
Br. 6-7.
Appellants’ argument unpersuasively attacks DeGroot individually,
even though the Examiner relies on the combined teachings and suggestions
of DeGroot and Zielinski (Final Act. 5). In particular, the Examiner relies
on DeGroof s program parts A and B as implemented according to IEC
61804-2 in view of Zielinski. Ans. 2—3. Appellants fail to show that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would not implement DeGroof s program parts A
and B according to IEC 61804-2. Appellants merely assert that DeGroof s
4
Appeal 2015-007248
Application 13/307,409
program parts A and B are executable and thereby differ from an IEC
61804-2 device description, which is alleged to be rather written as plain text
and thus not executable per se. See supra (block quote). Appellants do not
explain how the above difference shows an unexpectedness of implementing
DeGroot’s program parts A and B according to IEC 61804 2—e.g., shows an
artisan could not implement DeGroot’s program parts A and B according to
IEC 61804-2.
The argument also unpersuasively presents claim 15 as requiring the
service device to expand the electronic device description and then,
moreover, accordingly upgrade the field device. Claim 15 rather recites that
“the field device is . . . configured via a servicing device using a device
description^] an electronic device description ... is made available; the
electronic device description is expanded by a script. . . describing] the
additional function; and the field device is serviced from the servicing
device using the expanded electronic device description and is able to
execute the additional function.” Even when interpreted in light of the
Specification, the claim language does not require the service device to
formulate or even use the expanded electronic device description; much less
to upgrade the field device via the expanded electronic device description.
The claim language only requires the service device to “service” the field
device via an unspecified “use” of the expanded electronic device
description. DeGroof s operating device plainly services—namely
operates—the field device. See Spec. 8 (“[T]he servicing, or operating, tool
is a FieldCare tool[.]”) Appellants fail to show that such operating does not
entail use of DeGroof s program parts A and B, e.g., use by the operating
device and/or field device. For example, Appellants do not contend that
5
Appeal 2015-007248
Application 13/307,409
DeGroot’s field device can be operated by the service device without
execution of both program parts A and B by the field device’s
microprocessor Ml. See DeGroot || 26—28 (executing of respective
machine codes MIA and M1B).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of representative claim 15 and claims 16—29, which Appellants do not argue
separately (Br. 7).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15—29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6