ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2022

2021001370 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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. 15/720,722 09/29/2017 Scott A. Miller 2017P-202-US (ALBR:0692) 3730 42982 7590 03/21/2022 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19 1201 South Second Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 EXAMINER SHEFFIELD, HOPE CORNELL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2022 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): docket@fyiplaw.com raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com todd@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT A. MILLER, JEROME R. ANDERSON, RANDY A. CANNADY, TIMOTHY A. CAINE, MICHAEL J. ANTHONY, and DOUGLAS A. COULTER Appeal 2021-001370 Application 15/720,722 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2022). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001370 Application 15/720,722 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to event triggering of thin client resolution. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a visualization manager that, in operation, communicates with a thin client HMI to cause the thin client HMI to access and display a visualization from an industrial automation visualization source of a controlled machine or process, wherein the visualization is selected to provide adapted content based upon an event trigger of the controlled machine or process. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Baier US 2012/0242648 A1 Sept. 27, 2012 Scott US 2014/0108985 A1 Apr. 17, 2014 REJECTIONS Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Baier. Claims 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baier and Scott. OPINION Anticipation We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Rejection and Answer that Baier anticipates claim 1. We find unavailing Appellant’s arguments that Baier does not “base delivery of Appeal 2021-001370 Application 15/720,722 3 adapted visualizations based on an event trigger of a controlled machine or process.” Appeal Br. 6-7. As a preliminary matter, Appellant provides insufficient evidence that the Specification or claims limit “event trigger” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Baier’s disclosure. As the Examiner concludes, and we agree, the Specification merely lists non- limiting examples of “event triggers.” Ans. 4 (citing Spec. ¶ 49). Appellant argues that “the ‘event’ (here a ‘threshold’) is not a trigger related to the controlled machine or process, but rather to a confidence level determined in analysis, completely secondary, derivative, and not actually based on the controlled machine or process at all.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that the “confidence level” in Baier is merely used to infer an intent of an interested party. Id. at 7. We disagree with this characterization of Baier. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Baier discloses that the system selects what data to present as a function of the system in the form of a customized visualization. Ans. 5 (citing Baier ¶¶ 82, 83). The system analyzes and presents data as a function of context, state, or preference information. Baier, Fig. 5, steps 506, 512. “A variety of analytical techniques (e.g., probabilistic, statistical, rules-based, utility-based analysis, look-up table . . .) can be employed in connection with analyzing the data in connection with generating a relevant and meaningful visualization.” Baier ¶ 83. In an example, a confidence level meeting a particular threshold (e.g., 80% confidence) in connection with a context can be used. Baier ¶ 83. The Examiner finds that Baier’s meeting a confidence level threshold when analyzing data of what the entity is currently doing constitutes the “event Appeal 2021-001370 Application 15/720,722 4 trigger of the controlled machine or process,” as recited in claim 1, and we agree. Appellant argues that the “threshold” in Baier is not related to any machine or process, but rather to “something [that] will interest the ‘entity’ considering it.” Reply Br. 4. We disagree with this narrow characterization of Baier’s disclosure, which presents information in an industrial automation environment, and discloses that the information is related to a machine or process. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “something” that will “interest the ‘entity’ considering it” is not related to any machine or process-rather, that is exactly the type of “information of interest” (Baier ¶ 82), for example, the “status of device/equipment/system being monitored.” Baier ¶ 82. And, although Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that the “entity” in Baier is limited, Appellant acknowledges that Baier refers to an “entity” as including “a user, a group of users, a device, a system, or a business.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Baier ¶ 56). Regardless of the general contentions and imputed intended meanings articulated by Appellant in the Appeal Brief, “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, Appeal 2021-001370 Application 15/720,722 5 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). “[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). Because Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, for these reasons and for the reasons stated in the Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 2, 3, 6-13, and 15-20, which are not argued separately with particularity. Obviousness We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings that Baier and Scott teach the elements of dependent claims 5 and 14. Appellant argues that Scott does not teach “the product being made or processed by a controlled machine or process, and certainly nothing at all relating to an event trigger based on such a product being made or processed.” Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner relies on Scott to teach the claimed “state of a product being made or processed by the controlled machine or process,” as recited in claims 5 and 14. Ans. 6 (citing Scott ¶ 57). Appellant’s arguments regarding Scott’s individual shortcomings are unavailing, because the Examiner does not rely solely on Scott for teaching the event trigger, but rather the cited prior art collectively, including Baier. See Final Act. 8. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. Appeal 2021-001370 Application 15/720,722 6 Accordingly, for these reasons and for the reasons stated in the Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baier and Scott. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 4, which is not argued separately. Indefiniteness - Dependent Claim 4 “‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. . . . [T]he name of the game is the claim. . . .’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims-American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)) (emphasis omitted). More specifically, “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). The Examiner finds that the term “reduced” in dependent claim 4 is unclear, rendering the claim “indefinite.” Final Act. 2; Ans. 3, 4. The Examiner finds that “it is unclear whether this ‘reduced dataset’ is a partial visualization where only half of the system is displayed, a derivative visualization that has been compressed but still presents the same data as a non-reduced visualization, or a visualization of a reduced amount of data.” Ans. 4. Appeal 2021-001370 Application 15/720,722 7 We agree with Appellant that the claims are not indefinite because the claim term “reduced” is used alternatively with the word “limited” in the Specification. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 1-2. Thus, although the term “reduced” is broad in scope, and may include the various kinds of reduced datasets described by the Examiner, it cannot be said on this record that claim 4 is indefinite. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). CONCLUSION We reverse the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. We affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Baier. We affirm the rejection of claims 4-5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baier and Scott. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 6-13, 15-20 102 Baier 1-3, 6-13, 15-20 4, 5, 14 103 Baier, Scott 4, 5, 14 4 112(b) Indefiniteness 4 Overall Outcome 1-20 Appeal 2021-001370 Application 15/720,722 8 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2022). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2022). AFFIRMED