Ex Parte Mayer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

13689826 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017)

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.
13/689,826 11/30/2012 Albrecht Mayer INFAP338US 5068
51092 7590 06/14/2017
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
SOOFI, YAZAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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 @ eschweilerlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBRECHT MAYER
Appeal 2016-002361
Application 13/689,826
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an 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 reverse.
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal relates generally to
“[a]n automotive electronics system [that] includes an electronic control unit
and a trace adapter.” (Abstract).
Appeal 2016-002361
Application 13/689,826
Illustrative Claim
1. An automotive electronics system comprising:
an electronic control unit configured to receive
measurement signals and provide control signals based on the
measurement signals, wherein the electronic control unit is
further configured to obtain original instructions from a main
memory, identify instructions of the original instructions related
to trace information, and [L] generate trace signals by
replacing the identified instructions with trace instructions; and
a trace adapter coupled to the electronic control unit and
configured to obtain the trace signals from the electronic
control unit and identify a fault based on the trace signals.
(Contested limitation L is emphasized).
Rejection
Claims 1—20 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Zaiser et al. (WO
2007/048493 Al), hereinafter referred to as “Zaiser,” in view of fnoue et al.
(US 2010/0153784 Al), hereinafter referred to as “fnoue.”
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. For the reasons discussed infra, we find Appellant’s arguments
persuasive with respect to at least contested limitation L, as recited in
independent claim 1, and as recited in similar or commensurate form in
independent claim 13 (“replace the identified instructions of the binary
image with trace instructions”), and in independent claim 18 (“replacing the
2
Appeal 2016-002361
Application 13/689,826
identified instruction of the binary image with a trace instruction.”). We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our
analysis below.
Rejection of Independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We decide the following dispositive issue presented in this appeal:
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding the cited
combination of Zaiser and Inoue would have taught or suggested contested
limitation L: “generate trace signals by replacing the identified instructions
with trace instructions,” within the meaning of claim l?1 (Emphasis added).
In the Final Office Action (3—4), the Examiner reads the contested
limitation on paragraphs 38, 56—60, 86, 87, and 1422 of the cited English
translation of the Zaiser reference:
provide control signals, and to generate trace signals by
replacing original instructions with trace instructions ([see at
least 0038, 0056-0060, 0086, 0087 and 0142], “a control signal
comprises, for example, generated by the operating system of the
control device and/ or from the LO control unit program”, “. . .
the measuring device is configured for parameter 5 of a transmit
interface of the control unit, especially for the parameterization
of the so-called trace interface. Thus, it is possible, for example,
be parameterised to the trace memory resources of the control
unit memory area, and thus the amount of data on the link see
zwilo reduce the control device and the measuring device.”);
1 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2 We find no paragraph 142 in the machine translation of the Zaiser
reference. The last paragraph in the copy of record is paragraph 97 on page
9.
3
Appeal 2016-002361
Application 13/689,826
(emphasis omitted and added)
Appellant contends, inter alia:
The cited references do not teach or suggest replacing the
identified instructions with trace instructions as in claim 1.
The Advisory Action and the Final Office Action suggest that
Zaiser teaches replacing the identified instructions with trace
instructions and refers to paragraphs [0038], [0056-0061],
[0086], [0087] and [0142] of the English translation. Zaiser does
disclose a parameterization interface 72 to which monitoring
parameters can be parameterized. (Fig. 1; para. [0061]). An
example is provided where appropriate monitoring parameters
are sent to a device, (para. [0061]). Sending monitoring
parameters does not equate or teach replacing instructions with
trace instructions. Thus, Zaiser does not teach or suggest
replacing instructions, let alone the identified instructions,
with trace instructions as in claim 1. Inoue does not cure this
deficiency. As a result, the cited references do not teach or
suggest an electronic control unit configured to generate trace
signals by replacing the identified instructions with trace
instructions as in claim 1.
For at least the above reasons, the cited references do not
teach or suggest all the claim limitations of claim 1 and its
depending claims. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness has
not been established.
Claim 13 includes a qualification component configured
to identify instructions related to trace information according to
the list of addresses and replace the identified instructions with
trace instructions. For at least the reasons provided with regard
to claim 1, the cited references do not teach or suggest all the
claim limitations of claim 13 and its depending claims.
(App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted and added in bold).)
The Examiner disagrees. In the “Response to Argument” section of
the Answer (4) the Examiner adopts a broader interpretation of the claim
language: “The [E]xaminer interprets trace information as the trace signal;
once a trace signal is received it [] then identifies the trace information and
4
Appeal 2016-002361
Application 13/689,826
converts it into an instruction string (instruction code).” Given this
construction, the Examiner finds:
Inoue discloses in paragraph 0045 clearly states replacing the
identified instructions with trace instructions ([see at least
Fig. 1, 0045 and 0047], “ ... Trace interpretation circuit 110
interprets trace information from CPU trace signal 101, and
converts the trace information into an instruction string
(instruction codes) that was actually executed. The converted
instruction string is notified to memory read circuit 120 and to
trace comparison circuit 130. Trace interpretation circuit 110
may be internally equipped with a buffer to store the instruction
string.).
(Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted and added in bold)).
Thus, the Examiner shifts position in the Answer (id.) and now finds
Inoue, not Zaiser, teaches contested limitation L: “generate trace signals by
replacing the identified instructions with trace instructions;’ '’ (Claim 1).
At best, we find the newly cited portions of Inoue (Fig. 1, || 45, 47)
teach comparing trace instructions with corresponding previously executed
(non-trace) instructions to detect inconsistencies: “Trace comparison circuit
130 compares an instruction code from trace interpretation circuit 110 with
an instruction code from memory read circuit 120. If an inconsistency
occurs, then trace comparison circuit 130 informs CPU 10 accordingly
through CPU interrupt signal 102.” (Inoue, 147 (emphasis added)).
Inoue’s use of trace instructions to detect inconsistencies with
previously executed instruction code is further clarified in paragraph 51:
Trace interpretation circuit 110 informs trace comparison circuit
130 of the instruction code that has been executed (step S3).
Here, trace comparison circuit 130 waits for a notification from
memory read circuit 120. Memory read circuit 120 reads an
instruction code from memory 20 that corresponds to the
instruction address that is supplied at step S2 (step S4). Memory
5
Appeal 2016-002361
Application 13/689,826
read circuit 120 informs trace comparison circuit 130 of the
instruction code that was read at step S4 (step S5). Trace
comparison circuit 130 compares the instruction code with
the instruction code that was obtained at step S3, and
recognizes that both instruction codes do not coincide with each
other (step S5). Trace comparison circuit 130 requests CPU 10
to re-execute the processing through CPU interrupt signal 102
(step S6).
(emphasis added).
Appellant traverses the Examiner’s new finding in the Reply Brief (4)
The Examiner’s Answer suggests that paragraph [0045] of Inoue
discloses replacing the identified instructions with trace
instructions. Further, the Examiner’s Answer quotes a portion of
Inoue as stating that “trace interpretation circuit 110 interprets
trace information from CPU trace signal 101 and converts the
trace information into a string that was actually executed. The
converted instruction string is notified to memory read circuit
120 and to trace comparison circuit 130. Trace interpretation
circuit 110 may be internally equipped with a buffer to store the
instruction string.” Again, a converted instruction is converted
from trace information, (para. [0047]).
The converted instruction is not identified nor is it replacing an
instruction. The converted instruction is merely compared with
an instruction code to identify a temporary fault. The converted
instruction or any other instruction is not described as replacing
an original instruction. Comparing a converted instruction
with an instruction code as taught by Inoue does not teach or
suggest replacing original instructions with trace
instructions as recited in claim 1. Neither Zaiser, Inoue, nor the
combination of Zaiser and Inoue teach or suggest replacing
instructions, let alone the identified instructions, with trace
instructions as in claim 1. As a result, the cited references do not
teach or suggest an electronic control unit configured to generate
trace signals by replacing the identified instructions with trace
instructions as in claim 1.
(emphasis added).
6
Appeal 2016-002361
Application 13/689,826
We find the contested limitation of “replacing the identified
instructions with trace instructions” (independent claim 1), as recited in
commensurate form in each of independent claims 13 and 18, is not taught
or reasonably suggested by Inoue’s comparison of trace instructions with
previously executed instructions, flflf 45, 47, 51).
Therefore, based upon our review of the cited portions of Zaiser (see
Final Act. 3—4), and the newly cited portions of Inoue (Fig. 1, || 45, 47), we
find a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant’s responsive
contentions (Reply Br. 4) to the Examiner’s new findings in the Answer (4).
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the § 103
rejection of independent claims 1,13, and 18 over the cited combination of
Zaiser and Inoue. Because we have reversed the rejection of each
independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the § 103 rejection of all
remaining dependent claims on appeal.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
7