Lenze Automation GmbHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 20212021002449 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 16/112,196 08/24/2018 Andre LANGE 108250.PB497US 7706 23911 7590 09/30/2021 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 EXAMINER PATEL, HARDIKKUMAR D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2021 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): edocket@crowell.com mloren@crowell.com tche@crowell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANDRE LANGE and SEBASTIAN LUELSDORF ____________________ Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 4, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed February 23, 2021 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed December 23, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Action mailed April 7, 2020 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed December 3, 2019 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 2 Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1–10, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to a method of operating a fieldbus system. See Abstract. Claims 1, and 10 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1 which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method for operating a fieldbus system, wherein the fieldbus system comprises: a gateway, which has a network connection for a network of a specified type and a fieldbus connection for a fieldbus, and a number of fieldbus nodes, wherein the fieldbus nodes are coupled to each other and to the gateway via the fieldbus for the purpose of data exchange, wherein addressing takes place in the network of the specified type by way of network addresses, wherein the network addresses have a first part which designates a 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Lenze Automation GmbH, Aerzen, Germany, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2020). Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 3 destination address, and a second part which designates a port of the destination address, the method comprising the steps of: creating a bus configuration, wherein the bus configuration assigns a destination address to a port; and performing a network address translation using the gateway based on the bus configuration created. Prior Art Name4 Reference Date Fujisawa US 2009/0175284 A1 July 9, 2009 Master US 2012/0036514 A1 Feb. 9, 2012 Wei US 2012/0102240 A1 April 26, 2012 Zou US 2013/0301650 A1 Nov. 14, 2013 Yoo US 2015/0063167 A1 Mar. 5, 2015 REJECTIONS5 AT ISSUE. 1. Claims 1, 3, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wei and Master. Final Act. 3–7. 2. Claims 2, 7, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wei, Master, and Zou. Final Act. 7–10. 3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wei, Master, and Yoo. Final Act. 11. 4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wei, Master, and Fujisawa. Final Act. 11–12. 4 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 5 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 4 5. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wei, Master, Zou, and Yoo. Final Act. 12–13. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. We add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 1, 3, AND 10: OBVIOUSNESS OVER WEI AND MASTER. A. Independent Claim 1. The Examiner finds Wei teaches the claimed fieldbus system architecture. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Wei fails to teach the claimed method of operating the fieldbus. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Master teaches the claimed method. Id. (citing Master ¶¶ 58, 221). With respect to Master, Appellant raises two contentions: (1) Master is non-analogous art (Appeal Br. 9); and, (2) Master fails to disclose the steps of the method. Appeal Br. 10. (1) Non-Analogous Art. Appellant contends Fieldbus technology and protocols are well- known to those of skill in the art. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Wei ¶ 4) (discussing Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 5 the development of fieldbus). Appellant argues Wei addresses a problem wherein no two remote devices can use the serial fieldbus protocol to control the same control device at the same time. Id. (citing Wei ¶¶ 7, 121). Appellant argues the problem and solution of Wei differ from Appellant’s objective of providing a method and addressing scheme for operating fieldbus system, and a gateway, which enable simple and secure communication between fieldbus-external and fieldbus-internal nodes. Appellant contends that unlike the claimed invention (and Wei), Master is directed toward a method and apparatus for a compiler and related components for stream-based computations for a general-purpose, multiple- core system that converts a source code stream-based program to be executed on a multiple node computing device. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Master Title, Abstract, Claims). The Examiner finds in order to be considered analogous art, “a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned.” Ans. 13. The Examiner finds: In this case, prior art Marter et al. [sic “Master”], is directed to transmission of data, control and configuration information are transmitted between and among these matrix 150 elements, utilizing the matrix interconnection network, which may be configured and reconfigured, in real-time, to provide any given connection between and among the reconfigurable matrices, including those matrices configured as the controller 120 and the memory. Ans. 14 (citing Master ¶ 37). The Examiner does not address Appellant’s contention that Master relates to “a general-purpose, multiple-core system,” but not to “fieldbus” Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 6 systems. A person of ordinary skill in the fieldbus arts would know that “fieldbus” does not relate to data busses or addresses, in general. Rather, the person of ordinary skill would recognize that fieldbus profiles are standardized by the International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”) as IEC 61784/61158.6 Appellant discloses: According to one embodiment, the fieldbus is an EtherCAT fieldbus. Spec. ¶ 17. According to one embodiment, the destination address is an IPv4 address or IPv6 address. . . . According to one embodiment, the processed data packet is forwarded or transmitted via the fieldbus connection of the gateway to the fieldbus node that has the destination address of the processed data packet by means of an Ethernet over EtherCAT (EoE) protocol. Spec. ¶¶ 18, 19. 6 See International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 61158-1:2019, Industrial Communication Networks - Fieldbus Specifications - Part 1: Overview and Guidance for the IEC 61158 and IEC 61784 Series 1–4 (https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/59890) (last visited Sept. 14, 2021) (Abstract: IEC 61158-1:2019 specifies the generic concept of fieldbuses. This document presents an overview and guidance for the IEC 61158 series explaining the structure and content of the IEC 61158 series, relating the structure of the IEC 61158 series to the ISO/IEC 7498-1 OSI Basic Reference Model and showing how to use parts of the IEC 61158 series in combination with the IEC 61784 series. It also provides explanations of some aspects of the IEC 61158 series that are common to the type specific parts of the IEC 61158 5 including the application layer service description concepts and the generic fieldbus data types). Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 7 We find Master fails to disclose a “fieldbus,” or any similar concept. Master discloses: This invention relates in general to programming multiple-processor systems and more specifically to a compiler and related components that efficiently utilizes parallel programming constructs incorporating both streams and threads. Master ¶ 2. The Examiner makes no finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the programing of compiler and related components of multi-processor systems bears any relationship to creating a bus configuration under standards as set forth in documents such as IEC 61158-1:2019. Industrial communication networks - Fieldbus specifications. In view of the foregoing, we find Master is not analogous art to either Wei, or the claimed invention, both of which rely upon fieldbus technologies. The Examiner does not apply any of the secondary art to teach the disputed limitation. See generally Ans. (2) All Limitations Not Taught. Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia: the method comprising the steps of: creating a bus configuration, wherein the bus configuration assigns a destination address to a port; and performing a network address translation using the gateway based on the bus configuration created. Claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues: “[o]ther than containing, by happenstance, similar words such as ‘assigned’ and ‘port to address translation,’ this disclosure of Master is not remotely related to the claimed method.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends Masters discloses a method and apparatus for a compiler Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 8 and related components for stream-based computations for a general- purpose, multiple-core system that converts a source code stream-based program to be executed on a multiple node computing device. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Masters Title, Abstract, Claims). Appellant argues Master’s port to address translation is used for the completely different purpose of allowing for the loading and execution of the converted program. Id., at 10 (citing Master ¶ 58) (cited by the Examiner). Appellant argues one could not use the port-to-address translation table in a fieldbus system. Id. The Examiner finds Master discloses configuration and instruction busses for signaling and other transmission between and among the reconfigurable matrices 150, the controller 120, the memory 140, and for other input/output functionality. Ans. 16. The Examiner interprets Master’s disclosure as teaching the various busses are configured according to instructions, therefore, a bus configuration is created. Id. at 16–7. The Examiner finds Master teaches that for each assigned input port a port to address is configured in the translation table is configured, which the Examiner interprets as assigning destination addresses. Ans. 17. The Examiner fails to address Appellant’s argument that addresses relevant to loading and executing a source code stream-based program to be executed on a multiple node computing device, are relevant to fieldbus addresses. We find the Examiner fails to show how loading and executing a source code stream-based program to be executed on a multiple node computing device teaches configuring a fieldbus under the relevant IEC standards and protocols. Appellant argues Claims 2–9 in view of Claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner does not apply any of the secondary art to teach the disputed Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 9 limitation. See generally Ans. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejections of Claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. B. Independent Claim 10. Independent Claim 10 recites: A gateway, comprising: a network connection for a network of a specified type; a fieldbus connection for a fieldbus; and a control unit, which is configured to carry out a network address translation based on a bus configuration. Claim 10. Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner cites Wei as teaching a fieldbus gateway, but finds Wei fails to teach the claimed steps performed by the fieldbus gateway. Final Act. 4–5. Any prior art gateway must be capable of performing the claimed steps of the method. But as discussed above, we find Master fails to teach the claimed steps. The Examiner does not apply any of the secondary art to teach the disputed limitation. See generally Ans. We, therefore, decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 10. Appeal 2021-002449 Application 16/112,196 10 DECISION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 10 103 Wei, Master 1, 3, 10 2, 7, 8, 9 103 Wei, Master, Zou 2, 7, 8, 9 4 103 Wei, Master, Yoo 4 5 103 Wei, Master, Fujisawa 5 6 103 Wei, Master, Zou, Yoo 6 Overall Outcome 1–10 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation