Ex Parte Wacker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

11747657 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111747,657
90545 7590
HONEYWELL/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
05/11/2007
06/01/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul C. Wacker
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.
H0013804-1161.1285101 4915
EXAMINER
CHANG, SUNRAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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
Honeywell. USPTO@STWiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte PAUL C. WACKER
Appeal2014-004638
Application 11/747,657
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-7, 14, and 16-21, all remaining claims in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004638
Application 11/747,657
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to "a user interface for a control
platform" (Spec. 1 ).
Independent claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are exemplary of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A controller system comprising:
a building environment control platform having a display
screen; and
a user interface including a display, the user interface connected
to the control platform; and
wherein the user interface is configurable for the platform; and
the control platform comprises a function block engine in flash
memory including two or more function blocks as the platform, each
function block having a pre-defined function and including one or
more parameters and/or variables, wherein the function blocks are
unconnected and displayed in a source area, wherein the function
blocks are configured to be selected and interconnected to create a
variety of different controller programs including different function
blocks for controlling the building environment; and
the display screen is configured to display the selected fi.mction
blocks and the interconnecting of the selected function blocks of at
least one of the controller programs of the variety of different
controller programs; and
wherein the functions of the function block engine use a
common pool of RAM to hold minimal static value storage.
14. A control system comprising:
a building environment control platform having a display
screen, the control platform including a listing of a plurality of
unconnected parameters and/or variables that can be individually
selected and combined to create a control program; and
at least a portion of the listing of a plurality of unconnected
parameters and/or variables and individually selected and combined
parameters and/or variables are displayed on the display screen; and
a user interface connected to the platform, the user interface
having one or more tables with rows and columns displaying
2
Appeal2014-004638
Application 11/747,657
information in the rows and columns about selected and combined
parameters and/or variables at a first level of the one or more tables;
and
wherein the user interface is configurable for the platform;
wherein the user interface is configured with a generic menu
methodology of the control platform, the generic menu methodology
implementing the one or more tables;
wherein the one or more tables are populated by selecting
and/or combining one or more of the plurality of unconnected
parameters and/or variables; and
the user interface provides a selectable and/or adjustable display
format for selecting and combining the various parameters and/ or
variables of the platform at a second level of the one or more tables.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 14, and 16-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Simmons (US 7,209,870 B2; Apr. 24,
2007) and Wacker (US 6,851,621 Bl; Feb. 8, 2005). 1
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this Opinion. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded by Appellant's
contentions. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and reasons
1 The Examiner erroneously indicates claims 14 and 16-21 are allowed
(Final Act. "Office Action Summary"). However, as both parties appear to
understand these claims are not allowed (see Final Act. 6; App. Br. 6; Ans.
2, 10-11 ), we consider this harmless error.
3
Appeal2014-004638
Application 11/747,657
set forth in the action from which this appeal is taken and the Examiner's
Answer. We highlight specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1, because the combination of Simmons and Wacker fails to teach or suggest
"a function block engine of a building environment control platform that is
stored in flash memory and includes two or more function blocks that each
have a pre-defined function, where the functions of the function block
engine use a common pool of RAM to hold minimal static value storage"
(App. Br. 9). Appellant argues Simmons does not disclose what type of
memory is used in its system or how different features of the system may
use different types of memory (App. Br. 8, 9). Appellant also argues the
Examiner gave no patentable weight to the recited "flash memory" in
combination with the other features of claim 1, and that the Examiner
erroneously used the Specification to show that the claimed memory was
well known (Reply Br. 3).
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We note an "[obviousness]
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Wacker teaches processor 61, which may contain an on-
chip flash program memory, flash information memory, and RAM (Final
Act. 7 (citing Wacker col. 29, 11. 45--48; col. 36, 11. 26-28)). Further,
Wacker teaches the operating system tasks, executed by processor 61, may
communicate with one another through shared RAM variables (Wacker col.
4
Appeal2014-004638
Application 11/747,657
36, 11. 65-67). The Examiner also finds Appellant's Specification admits a
"non-volatile memory 334 may be Flash memory" or "any other suitable
non-volatile memory 334, as desired" (Ans. 10).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Simmons teaches "the
functions of the block engine use a common pool of RAM to hold minimal
static value storage" (Final Act. 7 (citing, inter alia, Simmons Fig. 2, col. 7,
line 53---col. 8, line 11 )). Simmons also teaches "An individual module 82-
102, including all submodules thereof, can physically be stored in any size,
shape, configuration, on any number of computers, in order to execute its
function" (Simmons col. 7, 1. 67---col. 8, 1. 3). Further, in Simmons, the
default data 112, within data module 102, contains static values (Simmons
col. 8, 11. 19-20) and the user interface module 82 can be stored within
memory 14 (Fig. 2; col 7 11. 53---62). Therefore, Simmons teaches storing the
user interface (e.g., functions and blocks) and data as modules within
memory 14, which can be of any configuration, size or shape including non-
volatile memory. The Examiner has provided a rational basis for combining
the references (Final Act. 7), thus, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Appellant's further argue the Specification discloses a benefit of the
claimed invention that includes allowing "complex programs to be executed
with a fixed memory of about lK of RAM, which one having ordinary skill
in the art would understand as being a very small amount of memory. See
Specification, lines 8-27 of page 14" (App. Br. 10). However, this limitation
is not in Appellant's claims. Although the c1aims are interpreted in light of
the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the
claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
1993} Therefore, for the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of
5
Appeal2014-004638
Application 11/747,657
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7, not argued separately (App.
Br. 12).
Appellant contends the Examiner also erred in rejecting independent
claim 14, and dependent claims 16-21 (App. Br. 13). Appellant asserts
Wacker fails to disclose "tables in the manner recited in the claims that have
rows and columns that display information about selected and combined
parameters and that are populated by selecting and/ or combining one or
more of the plurality of unconnected parameters and/or variables." (App. Br.
16).
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Wacker teaches a user
interface having one or more tables with rows and columns displaying
information (Ans. 6-7 (citing, inter alia, Wacker Figs. 8E, 9B, 9I, 9H, lOJ,
and 14D); Final Act. 10-11). We agree with the Examiner that Wacker's
Figures 9B, 9I, and 9H configure interface parameters in columns and rows,
where the parameters populate the screen and contain unconnected variables
(e.g., schedule of events on a calendar day compared to temperatures for
heating and cooling, which are unconnected variables) (Ans. 11 ). Thus, we
sustain the Examiners rejection of independent claim 14 and dependent
claims 16-21, not argued separately (App. Br. 17).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 14, and 16-21 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).
6
Appeal2014-004638
Application 11/747,657
AFFIRMED
7