Ex Parte Case

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

13116581 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/116,581 05/26/2011
42981 7590 02/02/2016
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION I T&W
ATTENTION: Linda H. Kasulke, E-7F19
1201 SOUTH SECOND STREET
MILWAUKEE, WI 53204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Clark L. Case
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
04AB108-US-A/ALBRP371USA 5775
EXAMINER
SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2016 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):
docketl@thepatentattorneys.com
hmckee@thepatentattorneys.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 CLARK L. CASE
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581 1
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to "industrial control systems,
and more particularly to a system and methodology that enables industrial
automation equipment to be regulated according to applicable standards via
the employment of electronic signatures, wherein operator actions requiring
signature verification are queued pending outcome of a completed signature
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Rockwell Automation
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
or cancellation thereof" Spec. if 2. Of the claims on appeal, claims 1, 12,
and 18 are illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and are reproduced
below, with emphasis added to highlight non-duplicative, disputed issues.
1. A system that facilitates regulation of an automated
manufacturing process, comprising:
a memory that stores computer-executable components;
and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the memory,
that facilitates execution of the computer-executable
components, the computer-executable components including:
a batch server configured to process a program that
facilitates execution of the automated manufacturing
process;
a signature component configured to identify, prior
to an execution of a command within the program, that
the execution of the command results in a parameter
value that does not satisfy a defined criterion; and
a queuing component configured to prohibit the
execution of the command until an electronic
signature expressed as a logical expression is received,
in response to an identification that the execution of the
command results in the parameter value failing to satisfy
the predefined criterion, wherein the electronic
signature is determined to satisfy a sign-off comment
included in a signature requirement associated with
the defined criterion.
12. A method to facilitate regulation of an automated
manufacturing process, comprising:
receiving, by a system including a processor, an
input that defines a criterion associated with a
variable parameter before processing one or more
actions relating to the automated manufacturing
process;
at run-time and prior to the processing,
determining that the processing of the one or
2
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
more actions results in a value of the variable parameter that
does not satisfy the criterion; and
in response to the determining that the processing results
in the value, delaying the processing of the one or more actions
at run-time, pending receipt and verification of data associated
with an electronic signature, wherein the data associated with
the electronic signature includes a conditional requirement
that the electronic signature be included in a subset of valid
signatures and the data includes a sign-off requirement
associated with the criterion that is satisfied by the electronic
signature prior to the processing of the one or more actions.
18. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
comprising computer-executable instructions that, in response
to execution by an industrial automation system, cause the
industrial automation system to perform operations,
compnsmg:
prior to an execution of a command by a batch processor,
identifying that the execution of the command results in a
parameter value that does not satisfy a defined criterion;
requesting data associated with an electronic signature, in
response to the identifying; and
prohibiting the execution of the command until the data
is received and verified, wherein verification of the data is a
function of an application of a logical operator to determine
that the electronic signature is included in a set of valid
electronic signatures and the electronic signature having been
determined to satisfy a sign-off comment included in the data,
wherein the sign-off comment is associated with the command.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Cooper (US 5,367,624; Nov. 22,
1994), Hirsch (US 2004/0093526 Al; May 13, 2004), and Spatscheck et al.
(US 7,620,807 Bl; Nov. 17, 2009) (hereinafter "Spatscheck"), (collectively
referred to as the "first combination").
3
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Cooper and Hirsch,
(collectively referred to as the "second combination").
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Cooper, Hirsch, and Lee (US
5,634,130; May 27, 1997), (collectively referred to as the "third
combination").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20,
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the April 12, 2013 Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2-26), (2) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the June 27, 2013 Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2-3), and (3) the reasons and
rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-33). We incorporate
such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise
noted. However, we highlight and address five specific findings and
arguments for emphasis. We also note that the findings and accompanying
reasoning below also apply to the same or similar arguments that Appellant
makes with respect to each of the rejections and independent claims.
4
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
(i) Prohibiting the execution ofa command
Appellant argues Cooper does not teach or suggest prohibiting the
execution of a command until an electronic signature is received, as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 11-12. Specifically, Appellant contends that Cooper
instead discloses "controlling" the execution of a command - not
"prohibiting." App. Br. 12 (citing Cooper col. 14, 11. 34--45); Reply Br. 3.
Appellant argues the distinction is "[p ]rohibiting execution of the command
implies that the command is prevented from executing, whereas controlling
a command implies regulating a command that remains in execution." App.
Br. 12.
The Examiner finds Cooper teaches prohibiting the execution of the
command because commands are queued (and not executed) until the
operator logs in with a usemame and password (e.g., an electronic signature)
and selects a production run from a pull down menu. Ans. 21 (citing Cooper
col. 7, 11. 7-22), 25 (citing Cooper Figs. 6a---6c, col. 14, 11. 34--45); see also
Adv. Act. 2.
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive and agree with the
Examiner's finding and reasoning for this disputed limitation, which we
adopt as our own. In further support of the finding, we note Cooper also
teaches having an approval field requiring "sign off' prior to the
performance of commands. See Cooper col. 14, 11. 1-5.
(ii) Determining an electronic signature satisfies a sign-off
comment
Appellant argues Cooper does not teach or suggest determining an
electronic signature satisfies a sign-off comment included in a signature
5
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
requirement associated with a defined criterion, as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 10-11. Specifically, Appellant argues Cooper teaches
a handwritten or manual notebook was typically moved from workstation to
workstation during a manufacturing process and a supervisor or operator
would sign off on a step in the process once completed and they could add a
note about the batch. App. Br. 12-13 (citing Cooper, col. 7, 11. 7-22).
Appellant then contends that such a disclosure does not meet this disputed
limitation. See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3--4.
The Examiner finds Cooper teaches or suggests using notebooks to
validate the manufacturing process for regulatory purposes, by having
supervisors or operators sign off and add notations about the particular batch
and the particular manufacturing command. Ans. 26 (citing Cooper col. 7,
11. 7-22); see also Adv. Act. 2 (finding the electronic notebook provides
sections where personnel can add notations about the particular
manufacturing batch being manufactured along with sign offs for particular
commands).
We find Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination, and in particular Cooper, teaches or suggests this disputed
limitation unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner and find Cooper
teaches or suggests having an electronic notebook with electronic signatures
(sign offs) that satisfy comments from other personnel included in the
notebook for the manufacturing batch. See Cooper col. 7, 11. 7-22. We also
note that Appellant does not sufficiently explain why the cited portion of
Cooper allegedly does not teach or suggest this disputed limitation. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why the examiner
erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant."); see also In re
6
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art").
(iii) The electronic signature is expressed as a logical expression
Appellant contends the first combination, and in particular
Spatscheck, does not teach or suggest that the electronic signature is
expressed as a logical expression, as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 13-14;
Reply Br. 4--5. Appellant, however, admits Spatscheck teaches or suggests
construction of signatures which can be expressed as Boolean expressions
consisting of some logical combination of Boolean values. See id. (citing
Spatscheck col. 8, 11. 61---68); Reply Br. 5---6.
The Examiner finds the first combination, and in particular
Spatscheck's teaching of electronic signatures consisting of a logical
combination of Boolean values, teaches this disputed element. Ans. 26-27
(citing Spatscheck col. 3, 11. 12-17, col. 8, 11. 61---66).
We agree with the Examiner's finding and reasoning and find the first
combination teaches or suggests this disputed limitation. See, e.g.,
Spatcheck col. 3, 11. 12-17, col. 8, 11. 61---66 (teaching an electronic signature
expressed as a logic expression of Boolean values).
7
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
(iv) Receiving an input that defines a criterion associated with a
variable parameter before processing one or more actions
relating to the automated manufacturing process
Appellant argues the second combination, and in particular Hirsch,
does not teach or suggest receiving an input that defines a criterion
associated with a variable parameter before processing one or more actions
relating to the automated manufacturing process, as recited in claim 12.
App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellant recites what Cooper and Hirsch
allegedly teach and then contends that these teachings fail to disclose this
disputed limitation. See id.
The Examiner finds Hirsch teaches or suggests this disputed
limitation, including teaching a signature field that can require one or
multiple signatures, as well as signatures by certain personnel such as a
supervisor (signature from a subset of valid signatures), before performing
test procedures. Ans. 28 (citing Hirsch Fig. 3C, i-f 66).
We find Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the
second combination teaches or suggests this disputed limitation
unpersuasive. For example, Hirsch teaches criterion associated with variable
parameters, such as if any signature is required, the number of signatures
required, and whether and which specific personnel are needed to sign off
(teaching a set of valid signatures that is checked for the electronic signature
to determine, for example, that a signature is a supervisor sign off) before a
procedure will be performed. See Hirsch Fig. 3C, i-f 66. We also note that
Appellant does not sufficiently explain why the cited portions of Hirsch and
Cooper allegedly do not teach or suggest this disputed limitation. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why the examiner
8
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant."); see also
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357 (holding that "the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art").
(v) Verification of the data is a function of an application of a
logical operator to determine that the electronic signature is
included in a set of valid electronic signatures
Appellant argues that the third combination, and in particular Lee,
does not teach or suggest that the verification of the data is a function of a
logical operator to determine that the electronic signature is included in a set
of valid electronic signatures, as recited in claim 18. App. Br. 21-22; Reply
Br. 12-13. Appellant, however, admits that Lee teaches that a set of
possible interrupt signatures are stored to validate received interrupts. See
App. Br. 21 (citing Lee col. 2, 11. 19-32). Appellant also admits that Lee
teaches applying a logical operator - an exclusive OR ("XOR") - to
validate a received interrupt. See App. Br. 21-22 (citing Lee col. 5, 11. 38-
41 ). After making these admissions, Appellant contends that Lee does not
teach this disputed limitation. See App. Br. 22.
The Examiner agrees with Appellant in finding Lee teaches or
suggests (i) a set of possible interrupt signatures are stored to validate
received interrupts and (ii) applying a logical operator - an exclusive or
("XOR") - to validate a received interrupt. See Ans. 30, 32 (citing Lee col.
2, 11. 19-32, col. 5, 11. 38--41). The Examiner concludes, however, that the
9
Appeal2014-002221
Application 13/116,581
third combination, and in particular these portions of Lee, teach or suggest
this disputed limitation. See Answer 29-32.
We agree with the Examiner and find Lee teaches or suggests
verifying data (e.g., validating signatures) by applying a logical operator
(XOR) to determine that the electronic signature (interrupt) is included in a
set of valid electronic signatures (signatures for set of possible interrupts).
See Lee col. 2, 11. 19-32, col. 5, 11. 38--41. We also note that Appellant does
not sufficiently explain why the cited portions of Lee allegedly do not teach
or suggest this disputed limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The
arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant."); see also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the reasoning above, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections of independent claims 1, 12, and 18. Further, Appellant did not
separately argue for the patentability of claims depending from these
independent claims. See App. Br. 15, 18, 23-24. Accordingly, we also
affirm the Examiner's rejections of the dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10