Ex Parte Weseloh

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2012

10807691 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2012)

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.
10/807,691 03/24/2004 Dirk Weseloh P03,0118-01 4405
26574 7590 06/28/2012
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
EXAMINER
WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DIRK WESELOH
____________

Appeal 2010-002035
Application 10/807,6911
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, THU A. DANG, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Siemens AG.
Appeal 2010-002035
Application 10/807,691

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 9-12, 14, 15, and 17, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. Claims 1-8, 13, and 16 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to a method for remote
maintenance of technical devices. See Spec., 1.
Claim 9 is illustrative:
9. A method for remote maintenance of a technical device
by a maintenance technician by a maintenance computer, comprising
the steps of:
establishing a remote data connection between the
maintenance computer and the technical device to be maintained;
transmitting electronic access information describing a
scope of intended access to data stored in the technical device from
the maintenance computer to the technical device to be maintained,
said data being understood to be confidential by an operating
personnel for the technical device;
transmitting an electronic identifier identifying the
maintenance technician from the maintenance computer to the
technical device to be maintained;
determining an approval by said operating personnel of
an access to the technical device dependent on the access information
describing the scope of the intended access to the data and the
identifier;
generating electronic authentication information by the
technical device dependent on the determination of the approval;
Appeal 2010-002035
Application 10/807,691

3
transmitting said authentication information from the
technical device to the maintenance computer;
with said maintenance computer, conducting said remote
maintenance of said technical device, said maintenance computer
receiving from said technical device confidential data which was
authorized based on said approval; and
automatically deleting electronic data from the
maintenance computer that has been transmitted from the technical
device to the maintenance computer and stored in the maintenance
computer dependent on termination of the access.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:

Claims 9-12, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Azieres (US 6,646,564 B1, Nov. 11, 2003) and
Othmer (US 6,167,358, Dec. 26, 2000).

ANALYSIS
Our representative claim, claim 9, recites, inter alia, “automatically
deleting electronic data from the maintenance computer that has been
transmitted from the technical device to the maintenance computer and
stored in the maintenance computer dependent on termination of the
access.” Independent claims 15 and 17 recite commensurate limitations.
Thus, the scope of each of the independent claims includes deleting stored
data from the maintenance computer dependent on termination of the access.

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Azieres and Othmer teaches and/or suggest “automatically deleting
electronic data from the maintenance computer that has been transmitted
Appeal 2010-002035
Application 10/807,691

4
from the technical device . . . dependent on termination of the access”, as
claimed?

Appellant contends that “the data being deleted is in the machines
being monitored, not in the server which is conducting the monitoring. . . .
Othmer thus teaches directly away . . . .” (App. Br. 8.)
The Examiner found that “Azieres explicitly teaches a technical
device and a maintenance computer. Othmer explicitly teaches deleting data
that has been stored when access is terminated.” (Ans. 12.)
Here, the Examiner admits that “Azieres does not explicitly teach
automatically deleting electronic data that has been transmitted and stored in
a computer dependent on termination of the access” (Ans. 5). The Examiner
relies upon Othmer to teach this missing feature (id. at 6).
Specifically, Othmer discloses that “the server may receive one or
more black boxes from each computer-based system 34-40 so that the
operator of the overall system may remotely monitor the plurality of the
computer-based systems.” (Col. 5, ll. 30-34.) Othmer further discloses that
“[t]he server stores the dynamic black box . . . Once storage has occurred,
the server sends a message 120 to the client machine instructing it to delete
its locally stored copy of the dynamic black box and to end the
communications session.” (Col. 14, ll. 7-16.) In other words, Othmer
deletes locally stored data from the client machine, i.e., the machine that
transmitted data to the server. However, the claimed invention requires
deleting data from the destination machine (maintenance computer), not the
source machine (client computer) dependent on termination of the access.
Here, the Examiner has merely shown deletion of stored data, but not in the
Appeal 2010-002035
Application 10/807,691

5
same manner nor from the same computer as claimed. Thus, the Examiner
has failed to cure the deficiency of Azieres by using Othmer.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. It
follows that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Othmer and Azieres renders claim 9 unpatentable. We
therefore cannot sustain the § 103(a) rejection against claim 9, and of claims
10-12, 14, 15, and 17 which are commensurate in scope.
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did err in
rejecting claims 9-12, 14, 15, and 17. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection
the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.

REVERSED

pgc