Ex Parte CaseDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201613116581 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation