Falk Raabe et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2019

14041410 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2019)

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.
14/041,410 09/30/2013 Falk RAABE 65040-256131 6545
141164 7590 09/25/2019
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (ABB)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
IRADUKUNDA, HERVE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2019 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):
INDocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FALK RAABE, JÜRGEN BAUMANN,
JÖRG ORTH, and HUBERT KANIA
____________

Appeal 2018-008487
Application 14/041,410
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–21, which constitute all the pending
claims in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify ABB Schweiz AG as the real party in interest (App.
Br. 2).
Appeal 2018-008487
Application 14/041,410

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “a connecting device for
use in an industrial installation” which “can be connected to an energy
supply line and has at least one first industrial bus interface” (Spec. ¶ 2).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A connecting device for use in an industrial installation,
which device can be connected to an energy supply line, the
connecting device comprising:

at least one first industrial bus interface configured to
receive first industrial bus input data transmitted using a first
industrial bus protocol;

a second industrial bus interface configured to receive
second industrial bus input data using a second industrial bus
protocol;

a modulator coupled to both the first industrial bus
interface and the second industrial bus interface and configured
to concurrently produce first energy bus output data by
modulating the first industrial bus input data from the first
industrial bus interface onto an industrial Ethernet protocol and
configured to produce second energy bus output data by
modulating the second industrial bus input data from the second
industrial bus interface onto the industrial Ethernet protocol, the
first energy bus output data and the second energy bus output
data together resulting in an energy bus output signal; and

an energy communicator configured to modulate the
energy bus output signal onto a current signal for transmission
on the energy supply line using a carrier frequency method.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2018-008487
Application 14/041,410

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
1. Keller US 6,847,316 B1 Jan. 25, 2005
2. Litwin, Jr. US 7,162,634 B2 Jan. 9, 2007
3. Juillot US 2009/0121845 A1 May 14, 2009
4. Helmut Beikirch and Matthias Voß, CAN-Transceiver for Field Bus
Powerline Communications, IEEE Int’l Symposium On Power Line
Commc’ns and Its Applications, 257–264 (2000) (hereinafter
“Beikirch”).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beikirch and Juillot. Final Act. 6.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beikirch, Juillot, and Litwin, Jr. Final Act. 11.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beikirch and Juillot. Final Act. 12.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beikirch, Juillot, and Keller. Final Act. 16.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beikirch and Juillot. Final Act. 17.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beikirch, Juillot, and Litwin, Jr. Final Act. 22.
Appeal 2018-008487
Application 14/041,410

4
Claims 7–14 and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beikirch and Juillot. Final Act. 23.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Beikirch and Juillot teaches or suggests the limitation of
a modulator coupled to both the first industrial bus
interface and the second industrial bus interface and configured
to concurrently produce first energy bus output data by
modulating the first industrial bus input data from the first
industrial bus interface onto an industrial Ethernet protocol and
configured to produce second energy bus output data by
modulating the second industrial bus input data from the second
industrial bus interface onto the industrial Ethernet protocol, the
first energy bus output data and the second energy bus output
data together resulting in an energy bus output signal,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 3, 5, 7, 15, and 16.
ANALYSIS

Appellants argue that
Juillot merely describes that a protocol may be encapsulated
within TCP/IP, and does not teach modulating an industrial bus
protocol onto an industrial Ethernet protocol prior to
modulating the data onto an energy supply line. As appreciated
by those skilled in the art of networking, TCP is a transport
layer protocol and IP is an Internet layer protocol, which are
both independent of the link layer, where the industrial Ethernet
protocol resides
(App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that “it is well known in the art of
computer networking that transport control protocol (TCP) is a layer 4
protocol of the Open Systems Interconnection model” (Reply Br. 2), and “it
is known to those skilled in the art that internet protocol (IP) is a layer 3
Appeal 2018-008487
Application 14/041,410

5
protocol [model]” (Reply Br. 3), whereas “it is also known to those skilled in
the art that industrial Ethernet is a layer 1 and layer 2 protocol” (Reply Br.
3).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
[c]laim 1 requires in part the limitation “an industrial
Ethernet protocol”, as recited in claim 1 above. The claim
and/or specification of the instant application does not specify
or give examples of what an industrial Ethernet protocol is.
Thus, any protocol that may be used with Ethernet may be an
industrial Ethernet protocol. Therefore, under BRI, TCP/IP is
an industrial Ethernet protocol
(Ans. 8). Appellants’ assertion that “industrial Ethernet is a layer 1 and
layer 2 protocol” is unsupported attorney argument and is non-persuasive.
See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney
arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie
case). Further, Appellants’ assertion is not commensurate in scope with the
claim, which only recites an “industrial Ethernet protocol.”
The cited portions of Juillot teach communications through a
powerline using “the LonTalk protocol (registered trademark), or via high-
speed powerline carrier, by using for example a protocol encapsulated in
TCP/IP” (Juillot ¶ 3; see Final Act. 9), and also teach “implementing a first
powerline communication protocol (the communication between nodes uses
for example the LonTalk or TCP/IP protocol)” (Juillot ¶ 58; see Final Act.
9). Additionally, Juillot expressly “implement[s] the LonTalk and TCP/IP
protocols.” See Juillot ¶ 87, and Fig. 3, module 31. The Examiner finds that
Juillot teaches that each node is communicated over a powerline
communication bus using protocol encapsulated in TCP/IP (Ethernet). See
Final Act. 9 (citing Juillot ¶¶ 3, 36, 58, and 60).
Appeal 2018-008487
Application 14/041,410

6
We note that Appellants’ own Specification describes “transmitting
signals between a control center and at least one field device in an industrial
installation.” Spec. ¶ 2. Thus, the Examiner under the broadest and
reasonable interpretation standard appropriately relied on Juillot for teaching
Ethernet as discussed above in an industrial setting applications as taught by
Beikirch, thereby appropriately characterizing it as “industrial Ethernet
protocol.” See Spec. ¶ 5; Juillot ¶ 5; Beikirch, page 257.
Thus, the Examiner has identified a TCP/IP protocol encapsulation
used in powerline communications, which broadly and reasonably is
encompassed by Appellants’ claimed “industrial Ethernet protocol” used to
create “an energy bus output signal.”
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1, as well as independent claims 3, 5, 7, 15, and 16 commensurate in scope
and not separately argued, as well as all dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Beikirch and
Juillot teaches or suggests the limitation of
a modulator coupled to both the first industrial bus
interface and the second industrial bus interface and configured
to concurrently produce first energy bus output data by
modulating the first industrial bus input data from the first
industrial bus interface onto an industrial Ethernet protocol and
configured to produce second energy bus output data by
modulating the second industrial bus input data from the second
industrial bus interface onto the industrial Ethernet protocol, the
first energy bus output data and the second energy bus output
data together resulting in an energy bus output signal,

Appeal 2018-008487
Application 14/041,410

7
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 3, 5, 7, 15, and 16.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3 and 5–21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED