Marek Obitko et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2019

13595266 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 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.
13/595,266 08/27/2012 Marek Obitko 2011P-102-US1 (1506.330) 6406
63122 7590 07/30/2019
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF
ATTENTION: Linda Kasulke
1201 SOUTH SECOND STREET
MILWAUKEE, WI 53204
EXAMINER
CASILLAS, ROLAND J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2019 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):
docketing@boylefred.com
raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MAREK OBITKO, PAVEL VRBA,
PETR KADERA, and VACLAV JIRKOVSKY
____________

Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20.
We affirm.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
June 9, 2017, the Amended Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed January 5, 2018,
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed March 9, 2018, and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed April 30, 2018.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ “invention relates to a user interface for an industrial
control system and in particular to a system and method for implementing a
user interface for a multi agent distributed control system using agent
ontologies.” See Spec. ¶ 2. The invention provides a “visualization system
and method configured to utilize both agent ontologies and agent knowledge
bases in a production system to dynamically create a production system
interface.” Id. ¶ 8. Agent’s operations can changed through editing, such as
when a new machine is installed in the system. Id.; see id. ¶ 31
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A visualization system computer communicating with a
memory to execute a stored program contained in a fixed
medium of the memory to display information regarding
control components in a manufacturing system, comprising:
a processor configured to execute instructions loaded
from the fixed medium of the memory instructing the processor
to implement:
an inspection agent configured to communicate with one
or more autonomous control components of the manufacturing
system to request control component information, wherein the
control component information received from each control
component includes
1) a control component ontology including a
listing of parameters and relations associated with the
control component that define the operating
characteristics of the control component, the operating
characteristics including at least one manufacturing
function related to the manufacture of a product and
implemented by the control component and at least one
relation function with at least one related control
component, and
2) a knowledge base including a listing of current
states for the parameters and relations of the control
component;
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

3
a visualization editor configured to generate a
visualization interface based on a detected change in the
number of control components or the functions of at least one
control component of the manufacturing system representative
of control component information for the manufacturing system
including relations between at least two autonomous control
components, the visualization interface generated prior to being
displayed to a user using the operating characteristics in the
listing of parameters and relations of the control component
from the control component ontology and the current states for
the parameters and relations of the control component from the
knowledge base and visually depicting the relations; and
an electronic web server configured to display the
visualization interface in response to a received web page
request.

Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App’x).

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(pre-AIA) based on Hoskins (US 6,108,662, issued Aug. 22, 2000) and Suit
(US 2010/0077078 A1, published Mar. 25, 2010). Final Act. 3–20.
Appellants argue claims 1–4, 6, 8–15, 17, 19 and 20 as a group.
Appeal Br. 14–16. Appellants separately argued (a) claims 5 and 16 and
(b) claims 7 and 18. Id. at 16–18. We select claims 1, 5 and 7 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–15, 17, 19 and 20
Regarding representative claim 1, Appellants argue “Hoskins does not
teach or suggest a visualization interface that has been generated prior to
being displayed to a user” and, therefore, “cannot be said to teach
‘visualization interface generated prior to being displayed to a user using the
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

4
operating characteristics in the listing of parameters and relations of the
control component’” as well as “from the control component ontology and
the current states for the parameters and relations of the control component
from the knowledge base and visually depicting the relations” as claim 1
recites. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellants further contend Suit does
not teach the purported features missing from Hoskins. Id. at 15–16. In
particular, Appellants assert Suit’s ontology describes an entire network,
“focus[ing] on network functionality between nodes,” and, thus, is “not
specific to each of the nodes as recited in claim 1” or the node’s
functionality such as “the recited operating characteristics in the listing of
parameters and relations of the control components.” Id. at 15 (citing Suit
¶ 22, Abstract). Lastly, Appellants argue the Examiner does not address
some recited features in their entirety (id. at 14), including the limitation of
“a system configured to ‘generate a visualization interface based on a
detected change in the number of control components or the functions of at
least one control component of the manufacturing system’” (id. at 15–16).

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
determining that Hoskins and Suit collectively would have taught or
suggested a visualization editor configured to generate a visualization
interface:
(I) “based on a detected change in the number of control components
or the functions of at least one control component of the manufacturing
system representative of control component information for the
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

5
manufacturing system including relations between at least two autonomous
control components,” and
[(II)] generated prior to being displayed to a user using the
operating characteristics in the listing of parameters and
relations of the control component from the control component
ontology and the current states for the parameters and relations
of the control component from the knowledge base and visually
depicting the relations

?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
I.
Appellants argue the limitation “a visualization editor configured to
generate a visualization interface based on a detected change in the number
of control components or the functions of at least one control component of
the manufacturing system” in claim 1 has not been addressed by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 15–16. We are not persuaded.
For completeness, the limitation in dispute recites
a visualization editor configured to generate a visualization
interface based on a detected change in the number of control
components or the functions of at least one control component
of the manufacturing system representative of control
component information for the manufacturing system including
relations between at least two autonomous control components

(“the disputed change limitation”). Id. at 20 (Claims App’x). The rejection
relies on both Hoskins and Suit to teach the disputed change limitation.
Final Act. 5–8 (citing Hoskins 52:5–9, 54:31–34, Figs. 30–31, 33–34 and
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

6
Suit ¶¶ 47, 49, Fig. 1). 5–8. Hoskins teaches “a visual editor configured to
generate visualization interface” representative a manufacturing system’s
control component information including relations between two control
components as claim 1 recites. Hoskins 52:5–9, 54:31–34, 54:45–48, Figs.
30–31, 33–34, cited in Final Act. 5. Specifically, Hoskins teaches an “editor
image 3042 that is displayed on a monitor” and provides an example of
building a manufacturing process’s floor plan showing relationships between
control components. Hoskins 52:5–6, 59–60, Figs. 30–31; see id. 37:45–60,
51:54–55, 54:42–62, Figs. 16 (showing functions of loader, drills, mill, and
unloader), 33–34 (showing S1–S5 (i.e., 3366–3370) representing the loader,
drills, mill, and unloader in series and their control components’ functions);
see Final Act. 5 (discussing S1–S5).
The Examiner indicated Hoskins does not explicitly teach the
visualization editor is configured to generate this virtual interface “based on
a detected change in the number of control components or the functions of at
least one control component of the manufacturing system.” Final Act. 6
(underlining omitted). Nonetheless, and contrary to Appellants’ mere
assertion (Appeal Br. 16), Hoskins at least suggests its editor generates a
visualization interface “based on a detected change in the number of control
components . . . representative of control component information for the
manufacturing system including relations between at least two autonomous
control components” as recited. For example, Hoskins shows an “EDIT”
menu where a user can “ADD STATION” (e.g., add another control
component (e.g., S6)) and suggests generating a new visualization interface
representing the new station’s control component information, including
relations the new station’s control component would have with at least one
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

7
other control component, based on this detected change in the control
component number. See Hoskins 54:23–55:21, Figs. 33–34 (showing an
“EDIT” menu where a user can add another station (e.g., S6 between S4 and
S5); see Final Act. 5 (discussing icon 3158b3 moving from one location to
another). As such, Hoskins suggests its ADD STATION feature could add a
sixth component (e.g., S6) along with its related control component
information for the sixth component, which would be visually represented in
the interface, including its relations to other control components (e.g.,
relations to S4’s and S5’s control components). See id. For these reasons,
we find Suit cumulative.
In any event, the Examiner turned to Suit in combination with
Hoskins to teach the disputed change limitation and provided a reason with a
rational underpinning for combining Suit’s teaching with Hoskins to arrive
at the claimed “visual editor.” Id. at 6–8 (citing Suit ¶¶ 3–9, 47, 49, Fig. 1);
see Ans. 5–6 (indicating the same). Appellants assert “[t]his limitation . . . is
not taught by . . . Suit.” Appeal Br. 16. But, this assertion amounts merely
to counsel argument with insufficient factually supporting evidence and is
unpersuasive. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
We therefore disagree with Appellants that the disputed change
limitation has not been addressed by the Examiner.
II.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertions that the Examiner
has failed to address the limitation
a visualization interface generated prior to being displayed to a
user using the operating characteristics in the listing of

3 Element 3158b does not appear in Figure 33.
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

8
parameters and relations of the control component from the
control component ontology and the current states for the
parameters and relations of the control component from the
knowledge base and visually depicting the relations

in claim 1 in its entirety (“the disputed generated limitation”). See Appeal
Br. 14–15. Specifically, the rejection states Hoskins teaches a
manufacturing system having autonomous control components and “control
component information received from each control component includes a
control component ontology4 including a listing of parameters and relations
associated with the control component that define the operating
characteristics of the control component.” Final Act. 4 (underlining omitted)
(citing Hoskins 8:24–42, 9:15–61). The rejection further found Hoskins’s
visual interface is generated using (1) the control component’s operating
characteristics from the control component ontology and (2) knowledge
bases, and visually depicting the relations. Id. at 5 (citing Hoskins 25:24–
37, 52:5–9, 54:31–34, 45–48, Figs. 30, 31, 33, 34); see Hoskins 25:15–23,
25:39–62, Fig. 5.
Appellants have not sufficiently challenged the Examiner’s findings
above related to Hoskins. See generally Appeal Br. Rather, Appellants
repeat claim language found in claim 1 and merely assert Hoskins does not
teach or suggest claim limitations. See id. at 15 (stating “Hoskins does not
teach or suggest a visualization interface that has been generated prior to

4 “Ontology” is defined as “2. Computers A system for naming, classifying,
and defining objects.” Ontology, The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, available at
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=ontology (def. 2) (last
visited July 3, 2019).
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

9
being displayed to a user,” “Hoskins cannot be said to teach ‘visualization
interface generated prior to being displayed to a user using the operating
characteristics in the listing of parameters and relations of the control
component,’” and “Hoskins does not teach or suggest such a generation
using operating characteristics and relation as recited, further ‘from the
control component ontology and the current states for the parameters and
relations of the control component from the knowledge base and visually
depicting the relations.’”); see Reply Br. 2. Arguments that merely repeat
claim language are not considered a separate argument for patentability. See
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
To be sure, the Examiner turns to Suit in combination with Hoskins—
not Hoskins alone—to teach specifically the interface is “generated prior to
being displayed to a user” feature in the disputed generated limitation. See
Final Act. 6–8 (citing Suit ¶¶ 3–9, 47, 49, Fig. 1). As best understood, the
Examiner construes the phrase “the visualization interface generated prior to
being displayed to a user” to mean the visualization interface is generated
automatically. See Final Act. 7 (citing Suit ¶ 46, Fig. 1 and stating “an
ontological description of the network may be automatically created”)
(bolding omitted). Yet, claim 1 does not recite automatically generating the
interface. Rather, as broadly as recited, the “interface generated prior to
being displayed” in claim 1 can reasonably be construed to include an
interface’s processor or other component that generates data that will be
displayed on the visualization interface prior to displaying the visual
representation. Using the previous example of adding another component
(e.g., S6) to the visualization interface in Hoskins, Hoskins suggests some
processor or similar component is used to generate the data related to the
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

10
added component (e.g., S6) that will be displayed in the visualization
interface (e.g., Figs. 33–34) prior to displaying the new component in the
Hoskins’ visualized floor plan.
In any event, the Examiner further turns to Suit in combination with
Hoskins to teach the “generated prior to being displayed to the user” feature
in claim 1. See Final Act. 7–8 (citing Suit ¶ 46, Fig. 1). Appellants do not
dispute Suit teaches or suggests this specific feature in claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 15. Instead, Appellants assert Suit’s ontology describes an ontology of
“an entire network” (Appeal Br. 15) rather than individual node ontologies
and thus fails to teach the above-quoted limitation in claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 15 (citing Suit ¶ 22); see Reply Br. 3 (discussing “a single network
ontology.”). We are not persuaded.
Notably, claim 1 does not recite a node or a node’s ontology but rather
“each control component includes a control component ontology.” Appeal
Br. 20 (Claims App’x); see Ans. 5 (stating “the claims do not recite creating
an ontology for individual nodes within the manufacturing system.”). As
previously discussed, the rejection relies on both Hoskins and Suit
collectively to teach the ontology recitations in claim 1 and Hoskins
specifically teaches the recited “control component ontology” feature in
claim 1. See Final Act. 5–8. Thus, the rejection includes a suggestion from
Hoskins to use operating characteristics from the disputed control
component ontology when generating the visualization interface.
We further disagree that Suit in combination with Hoskins does not at
least suggest the disputed generated limitation. In particular, the Examiner
further relies on Suit to teach the interface is generated “using operating
characteristics . . . from the control component ontology” as recited in claim
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

11
1. See Final Act. 7 (citing Suit ¶¶ 43–44, 47, 60); see Ans. 4–5 (citing Suit
¶¶ 41–42, 45–46)). Suit teaches using agents “within the node” (Suit ¶ 41)
to observe a node and to collect node data, including relational and state data
(id. ¶¶ 40, 42–43, 45–47), and that a node can be an entity, such as a virtual
or physical infrastructure (id.¶ 40). Although Suit teaches creating “an
ontological description of the network” (id. ¶ 46 (emphasis added)), Suit
suggests the collected data (e.g., parameters, relations, and state for an
entity/objects) represents ontologies of individual entities (e.g., data defining
nodes or components). As such, and to the extent Hoskins does not suggest
the recited “control component ontology” as claim 1 recites, Suit further
suggests a component parameters and relations associated with each control
components disclosed in Hoskins can be organized as an ontology as taught
by Suit. See Final Act. 7–8. This proposed combination (see id.) would
have predictably yielded “a visualization interface generated prior to being
displayed to a user using the operating characteristics in the listing of
parameters and relations of the control component from the control
component ontology” as claim 1 requires.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2–4, 6, 8–15, 17, 19, and
20, which are not argued separately.

Claims 5 and 16
Claim 5 indirectly depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein
received input [from a user] to modify the displayed control component
information is used to modify the control component ontology for at least
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

12
one autonomous control component.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App’x). The
Examiner relies on Hoskins to teach this limitation. Final Act. 9 (citing
Hoskins 33:35–51, 57:16-20, Figs. 14, 35, 36).
For this claim, Appellants argue Hoskins discusses generating a new
control assembly instance or modifying a table but does not address
modifying the displayed control component information. Appeal Br. 17
(citing Hoskins 33:35–51, 57:16–20). We are not persuaded.
Hoskins teaches a graphical editor that permits an actuator (e.g., block
3596 representing a motor or the recited “control component”) to be edited
by a user. See Hoskins 57:16–20, Fig. 35. Hoskins provides an example of
a user entering an actuator’s name, speed, and direction and one skilled in
the art would have recognized that, when a user edits a motor speed from
100 to 90 IN/MIN, the resulting displayed “IN/MIN” box in Figure 35
would also be modified from “100” to “90.” See id., 55:39–43, 57:1–20,
Fig. 35 (showing block 3597 “IN/MIN” and block 3599b “DIR”).
Moreover, Hoskins teaches changes in control element 518 (e.g., an
actuator) are detected and stored. Hoskins 25:13–33, Fig. 5, cited in part in
Final Act. 4–5. Furthermore, Appellants acknowledge columns 56 and 57
disclose modifying control component information, which propagates “to
other similar control components.” Appeal Br. 18. Thus, Hoskins at least
suggests modifying “the control component ontology for at least one
autonomous control component” as recited.
The Examiner also states Hoskins teaches modifying current control
components or adding a new component, which changes “the positions of
the components that utilize the actuators added within the ontology.” Ans. 6
(citing Hoskins 33:35–51, 55:39–57:27, Figs. 14, 35–36); see Hoskins
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

13
54:23–55:21. We agree. For example, Hoskins teaches an EDIT menu
where parameters of an actuator can be defined. Hoskins 55:56–65, Figs.
35–36. Hoskins also discusses, when adding a new control assembly
instance (e.g., 1400), “selected resources that are under the control of the
newly created control assembly named 1stClamps 1400 are shown” and thus,
suggests to an ordinarily skilled artisan a new relationship has been created
between the new control component and an existing control component.
Hoskins 33:42–44, Fig. 14. Lastly, as previously noted, Figures 33 and 34
permit a user to add a new station (e.g., S6) between two existing stations
(e.g., S4 and S5), which has an effect on how the existing stations and their
corresponding control components are defined (e.g., affects S4’s and S5’s
ontology). See Hoskins 54:23–55:21, Figs. 33–34. Thus, adding a new
control component in Hoskins suggests receiving an “input to modify the
control component ontology for at least one autonomous control component”
as recited in claim 5.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 5 and claim 16, which is commensurate in scope
with claim 5.
Claims 7 and 18
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites “[t]he visualization
system of claim 1 wherein the visualization editor is configured to modify
the positioning of at least a second autonomous control component in a
displayed graph based on received input modifying the control component
ontology for a first autonomous control component.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims
App’x). The Examiner relies on Hoskins to teach this limitation. Final Act.
9–10 (citing Hoskins 56:13–35, 56:62–57:20, Fig. 35).
Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

14
Appellants argue the cited passages modify control component
information, which propagates “to other similar control components,” but
that Hoskins does not teach or suggest the modified “information is used to
modify the control ontology” as recited. Appeal Br. 18. We disagree for
reasons similar to that discussed for claim 5. We emphasized that Hoskins
teaches editing an actuator or component information and further detecting
and storing changes in the actuator, which is a control component. See
Hoskins 25:13–33, 55:39–43, 57:1–20, Figs. 5, 35. Storing this data
suggests modifying control component information, including its “control
component ontology,” for reasons previously discussed. Moreover, one
skilled in the art would have recognized changes in one control component,
which can be stored in a control component ontology as Hoskins suggests,
affects related control components. As an example, adding a new
component as previously discussed (e.g., S6 between S4 and S5 in Fig. 33)
can affect the position of another component. See Ans. 6 (citing Hoskins
33:35–51, 55:39–57:27, Figs. 14, 35–36); see Hoskins 54:23–55:21. As
such, Hoskins suggests its “editor is configured to modify the positioning of
at least a second autonomous control component in a displayed graph based
on received input modifying the control component ontology for a first
autonomous control component” as recited in claim 7.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 7 and claim 18, which is commensurate in scope
with claim 7.

Appeal 2018-005636
Application 13/595,266

15
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
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).

AFFIRMED