2020005056 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021)

Sensia Netherlands B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 2, 2021

2020005056 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021)

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. 14/312,462 06/23/2014 Andrew Weatherhead 123960-0313 1694 26371 7590 02/02/2021 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER ROSS, SCOTT M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2021 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): ipdocketing@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW WEATHERHEAD and EDWARD ANTHONY GRAY Appeal 2020-005056 Application 14/312,462 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 1–5 and 18–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Rockwell Automation Asia Pacific Business Center Pte. Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005056 Application 14/312,462 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention, according to Appellant, generally relates to cloud- based asset management and analysis regarding well devices. See Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 18, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for a cloud-computing system to communicatively couple with a remote terminal unit (RTU) configured to monitor and/or control one or more operations of a well device associated with a hydrocarbon well, wherein the method comprises: receiving, via at least one processor and communication circuitry, a request from the RTU attempting to communicatively couple with the cloud-computing system, wherein the request comprises identification data regarding the RTU; querying one or more databases communicatively coupled to the processor via the communication circuitry to determine that the RTU has not been previously communicatively coupled to the cloud-computing system based on the identification data; receiving a global positioning system (GPS) location associated with the RTU in response to the RTU not being previously communicatively coupled to the cloud-computing system; identifying a profile that corresponds to the GPS location, wherein the profile comprises an indication of the well device configured to control one or more operations of the hydrocarbon well; identifying, via the at least one processor, configuration data for the RTU based on the well device, wherein the configuration data is configured to cause the RTU to operate the well device; and sending the configuration data, via the communication circuitry, to the RTU, wherein the configuration data is configured to modify a configuration of the RTU, thereby adjusting operation of the RTU based on the modified configuration of the RTU. Appeal 2020-005056 Application 14/312,462 3 18. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions configured to: receive an indication that a remote terminal unit (RTU) communicatively coupled with a cloud-computing system moved to a global positioning system (GPS) location; identify a profile that corresponds to a well device associated with the GPS location, wherein the well device is configured to control one or more operations of a hydrocarbon well; identify configuration data for the RTU based on the profile, wherein the configuration data is configured to cause the RTU to operate the well device; and send the configuration data to the RTU, wherein the configuration data is configured to modify a configuration of the RTU, thereby adjusting operation of the RTU based on the modified configuration of the RTU. Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, Claims App. REJECTION Claims 1–5 and 8–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Vanderah et al. (US 2014/0092083 A1, published Apr. 3, 2014) (“Vanderah”) and Buchdunger et al. (US 2013/0211547 A1, published Aug. 15, 2013) (“Buchdunger”). Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS Claims 1–5 With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the cited portions of Vanderah do not teach or suggest the limitation “querying one or more databases communicatively coupled to the processor via the communication circuitry to determine that the RTU has not been previously communicatively coupled to the cloud-computing system based on the identification data,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that Vanderah teaches that a primary RTU 104 sends identification data Appeal 2020-005056 Application 14/312,462 4 corresponding to each known RTU along with a request that any unknown RTUs identify themselves, thereby enabling the unknown RTUs to determine that they are unknown and respond to the primary RTU 104. Id. at 7–8. The Examiner further found that “the retrieving and sending back of identification data (tags, IDs) to the RTU, may be considered ‘querying [a database]’” as claim 1 requires. Ans. 7 (citing Vanderah ¶¶ 41–42). We disagree with the Examiner. In Vanderah, a discovery application generates a message requesting any unknown or unidentified RTU on the network to identify itself. Vanderah ¶ 41. When an undiscovered RTU receives the discovery request, it responds by communicating its corresponding identification data to the discovery application, which stores or communicates the data to a host. Id. ¶ 42. The Examiner has not sufficiently identified or explained how the cited portions of Vanderah teach or suggest querying one or more databases to determine that the undiscovered RTU has not been previously communicatively coupled to the cloud-computing system based on the identification data. For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown with sufficient clarity in the Final Action how the combination of Vanderah and Buchdunger teaches or suggests the disputed “querying” limitation. Thus, on the record before us, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 2–5, which depend from claim 1. Claims 18–20 With respect to independent claim 18, Appellant contends the cited portions of Vanderah and Buchdunger do not teach or suggest the limitation “receive an indication that a remote terminal unit (RTU) communicatively Appeal 2020-005056 Application 14/312,462 5 coupled with a cloud-computing system moved to a global positioning system (GPS) location,” as recited in claim 18. Appeal Br. 12. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that Figure 16 and paragraph 106 of Vanderah teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5, 13 (“Claim 18 stands rejected based on the same citations and rationale as Claim 1.”). Paragraph 106 of Vanderah, however, teaches that “time data may be obtained via a global positioning system (GPS) such that all RTUs in the network receive the same signal.” Vanderah ¶ 106. In the Answer, the Examiner interpreted the recited phrases “moved to a location,” “GPS location,” and “receiving an indication” broadly, but proffered no explanation or evidence to support that the claim interpretations are the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the claim elements. Moreover, the Examiner did not explain how the interpretations in the Answer correspond with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the Specification, i.e., interpretations that are “consistent with the specification.” See Reply Br. 14; see also Ans. 11; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown with sufficient clarity how the combination of Vanderah and Buchdunger teaches or suggests the disputed “receive” limitation. Thus, on the record before us, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 18. We also do not sustain the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 19 and 20, which depend from claim 18. Because it is dispositive that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the cited prior art teaches or reasonably suggests the disputed limitations, we do not address other issues raised by Appeal 2020-005056 Application 14/312,462 6 Appellant’s arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 18–20. DECISION SUMMARY2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 18–20 103 Vanderah, Buchdunger 1–5, 18–20 REVERSED 2 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the guidance set forth in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106 [R-10.2019]. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See MPEP § 1213.02.