Hubbell Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2022

2020005385 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2022)

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. 15/779,291 05/25/2018 Nik ILIJIC 066830-01447 5121 120225 7590 01/25/2022 Dickinson Wright PLLC - Hubbell 1825 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER BLANTON, JOHN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2022 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): DWPatents@dickinsonwright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NIK ILIJIC ____________ Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Hubbell Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The invention relates to “using synchronization pulse control of channel bandwidth on the data communication bus.” Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, the Specification describes an existing input/output (“I/O”) and control system (“SILBUS”) and associated problems: SILBUS is an example of an existing input/output (I/O) and control system having a data communication bus deployed between a controller and field devices along a conveyor or other industrial system having equipment and/or monitored sensors distributed over or along a geographically large area or long distance for industrial applications and often in harsh environments . . . . . . . . . . . SILBUS . . . has limitations in terms of noise immunity from variable frequency drives, and limitations with respect to the number of channels for input and output devices, as well as limitations on transmission distances on large overland conveyors, and line powering of the distributed devices. For example, many large motors are used to power conveyors; these motors are switched on and off, change speed from low to high and trip off on overload. Variable speed motor drives are also employed. Because these activities all take place at the end of relatively long supply cables, the electrical environment is characterized by the presence of large switching transients, general electrical noise and harmonics. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7. As a result, the Specification describes the invention’s objective of improving the existing I/O and control systems: A need therefore exists for a data communications bus in a system that accommodates more devices which can be deployed over greater distances and has improved noise immunity. Further, it can be difficult to configure a large number Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 3 of geographically distributed devices. A need exists for devices in the field to automatically reconfigure themselves when the control unit or channel generator with which they communicate changes a system parameter such as the number of channels of communication and the bandwidth used per channel. Id. ¶ 8. Claim 1 is exemplary (with emphasis added to denote a disputed limitation): 1. A method of implementing a bus protocol for interfacing a control unit to plural devices connected to the bus comprising: generating a pulse train comprising a plurality of cycles for transmission on the bus, each of the cycles comprising a low voltage level portion for a designated period of time and a high voltage level portion for a second designated period of time and, at least some of the cycles being assigned to respective ones of the plural devices as input/output (I/O) channels; wherein the pulse train comprises bus scan cycles that each comprise a selected number of the I/O channels, and a synchronization pulse after the I/O channels that is configured to vary in duration in accordance with a designated change in channel bandwidth. Appeal Br. 1 (Claims App.) (Exh. A). References and Rejections2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1-8, 10-14 103 Cole (US 2010/0030345 A1, pub. Feb. 4, 2010), Rupp (US 2002/0091838 A1, pub. July 11, 2002) 9 103 Cole, Rupp, Plummer (US 2002/0053970 A1, pub. May 9, 2002) 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated September 27, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated February 19, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 15, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated July 15, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of Cole and Rupp collectively teach “a synchronization pulse . . . that is configured to vary in duration in accordance with a designated change in channel bandwidth,” as recited in independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2-5. The Examiner finds “Cole does not expressly disclose, but Rupp . . . teaches” the above disputed limitation. See Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner cites Rupp’s paragraphs 24 and 28-36 and finds: a synchronization pulse after the I/O channels that is configured to vary in duration in accordance with a designated change in channel bandwidth (paragraph 28-36: This fieldbus system according to the present invention allows to adjust the data transmission rate very easily by using the central unit provided only once in the system, the data transmission rate being adopted by all of the subscribers connected to the fieldbus). Final Act. 4 (emphases omitted); Rupp expressly discloses a fieldbus controller that starts with a first standard transmission rate, i.e. bandwidth, of 20k Baud and then switches to a target transmission rate, i.e. a changed bandwidth, of 250k Baud (p24). The transmission rates have different pulse durations corresponding to 20k and 250k Baud, respectively. Each subscriber synchronizes to current transmission rate and logs on to the fieldbus controller without interrupting the bus (28-36). In other words, Rupp discloses a method of determining the bit rate or bandwidth of a fieldbus network by detecting the pulse rate whose duration changes based on the bit rate or bandwidth currently in use. Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 5 We disagree with the Examiner. Starting with claim construction, it is well established that during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Specification defines the claimed “channel bandwidth” as the “total time allocated to each channel pulse (e.g., default value of 2400us),” and “channel pulse” as “a cycle comprising low voltage level portion for a designated period of time, and a high voltage level portion for a designated period of time.” Spec. ¶¶ 37-38. Consistent with the above definitions, the Specification illustrates the disputed limitation in connections with Figures 9A and 9B reproduced below: Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 6 Figures 9A and 9B, reproduced above, “are tables indicating, respectively, example pulse train cycle times and mark/space timings depending on synchronization (sync) pulse duration and corresponding bandwidth in Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 7 accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.” Spec. ¶ 31. The Specification describes the disputed limitation “a synchronization pulse . . . that is configured to vary in duration in accordance with a designated change in channel bandwidth” in connection with Figures 9A and 9B as follows: With reference to Figs. 9A and 9B, an 8ms sync pulse indicates a standard channel bandwidth . . . . Shorter or longer sync pulses indicate alternate channel bandwidths. Although the channel bandwidth changes as indicated in Fig. 9A and 9B, the mark-space ratio of the signal remains the same. In accordance with an advantageous aspect of this embodiment of the present invention, a system designer is able to increase the bandwidth for shorter, less noisy and more stable systems, and inversely decrease bandwidth for increased noise immunity and distance for longer, noisier and less stable systems. Spec. ¶ 75 (emphases added). Turning to the rejection, Rupp’s paragraph 24 (cited by the Examiner) states: Preferably, the first value of the data transmission rate is the standard transmission rate, for example 20 kBaud, and the second value is the target value of the fieldbus system, for example 250 kBaud. These values have been proven as particularly advantageous in practical use. Rupp ¶ 24. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding that Rupp’s data transmission rate teaches the claimed “channel bandwidth” (Ans. 3),3 the portions of Rupp 3 The Examiner’s statement of “first standard transmission rate, i.e. bandwidth, of 20k Baud and then switches to a target transmission rate, i.e. a changed bandwidth, of 250k Baud” (Ans. 3) appears to include typographical errors, as the claim element is “channel bandwidth,” not merely “bandwidth.” If the Examiner intends to state Rupp’s data transmission rate constitutes “bandwidth”-not the claimed “channel Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 8 cited by the Examiner do not describe the data transmission rate to be any channel bandwidth, as that term would be understood in light of the Specification. As discussed above, the claimed “channel bandwidth” is the “total time allocated to each channel pulse (e.g., default value of 2400us),” and the Examiner has not explained why Rupp’s data transmission rate (such as 20 kBaud), which has a different unit of measurement, constitutes the claimed “channel bandwidth” in light of that definition. Because the Examiner has not shown Rupp teaches the claimed “channel bandwidth,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown Cole and Rupp collectively teach “a synchronization pulse . . . that is configured to vary in duration in accordance with a designated change in channel bandwidth,” as required by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4-5. As a result, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of corresponding dependent claims 2-14. Although the Examiner cites an additional reference for rejecting dependent claim 9, the Examiner has not shown the additional reference overcomes the deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. We note Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (an administrative agency’s “judicious use of a single dispositive issue approach . . . can . . . save . . . unnecessary cost and effort”). bandwidth,” then the rejection is deficient because the Examiner has not adequately mapped the claimed “channel bandwidth.” Appeal 2020-005385 Application 15/779,291 9 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-8, 10-14 103 Cole, Rupp 1-8, 10-14 9 103 Cole, Rupp, Plummer 9 Overall Outcome 1-14 REVERSED