2020004716 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2021)

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 23, 2021

2020004716 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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. 15/131,660 04/18/2016 Benjamin LUTZ 5029-1532 - 384268 4599 27799 7590 06/23/2021 COZEN O''CONNOR 3WTC, 175 Greenwich Street 55th Floor NEW YORK, NY 10007 EXAMINER HIDALGO, FERNANDO N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2827 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2021 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): patentdocket@cozen.com patentsecretary@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BENJAMIN LUTZ and GERRIT WOLF Appeal 2020-004716 Application 15/131,660 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and DEBORAH M. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens AG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004716 Application 15/131,660 2 Appellant’s invention is directed a method and system for operating automation equipment that includes an operator system for displaying a technical process to be controlled and at least one automation device that is configured for process control of CFC functions of a control program which are loaded onto the at least one automation device and are created by means of a Continuous Function Chart editor. (Claims 1 and 3; Spec. 1). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for operating industrial automation equipment which includes an operator system comprising a processor and memory, said operator system displaying a technical process of the industrial automation equipment to be controlled and at least one automation device which is configured to process, for process control, Continuous Function Chart (CFC) functions of a control program loaded onto the at least one automation device and created via a CFC editor, the method comprising: capturing a processing load of the at least one automation device; loading onto the operator system Continuous Function Chart (CFC) functions which correspond to the CFC functions of the control program which are loaded onto the at least one automation device and created via the CFC editor; and activating and processing, via at least one selector of the at least one automation device as a function of the processing load, one of (i) at least one CFC function of the CFC functions loaded onto the at least one automation device and created via the CFC editor to control the technical process of the industrial automation equipment and (ii) a CFC function in the operator system corresponding to the at least one CFC function of the CFC functions loaded onto the at least one automation device and created via the CFC editor to control the technical process of the industrial automation equipment. Appellant appeals the following rejection: Appeal 2020-004716 Application 15/131,660 3 Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Siemens (https://w3.siemens.com/mcms/process-control- systems/en/distributed-control-system-simatic-pcs-7-system- components/operator-system/pages/operator-system.aspx (July 13, 2014) in view of Kempf (Publication “Modern Plant Control Centers and Operator Control Concepts”) and Siemens 2 (Publication “SIMATIC CFC for S7”). Appellant argues claims 1-4 as a group (Appeal Br. 3–6). We select claim 1 as representative of the group. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Siemens, Kempf and Siemens 2 are located on pages 4 to 7 of the Final Action. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant argues the Examiner’s reason for combining the references (i.e., Siemens, Kempf and Siemens 2 are concerned with automated equipment operation and the teachings of one reference would have been relevant in advancing the techniques by the others) is insufficient (Appeal Br. 5; Final Act. 6). Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is based on hindsight and is not based on a rationale as listed in § 2141(III) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) (Appeal Br. 5, 6–7). Appellant argues that a skilled person is provided with no reason to combine Siemens, Siemens 2 and Kempf absent impermissible hindsight (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3). The Examiner finds that the combination of Siemens, Siemens 2 and Kempf is merely the predictable use of prior art elements according to their Appeal 2020-004716 Application 15/131,660 4 established functions (Ans. 4). Although Appellant argues the Examiner failed to provide the rationale or reason that supports that conclusion or provide an analysis of a known method by which the proffered modification would have been achieved, we understand the Examiner to find that these Siemens authored documents are directed to similar automated control methods/systems such that it would have been obvious to combine their teachings, such as the use of CFCs, to advance control techniques (Reply Br. 2, 3; Final Act. 3, 6). For example, Siemens 2 discloses using Continuous Function Chart (CFC) in conjunction with computer processing units (CPUs) in SIMATIC S7 programmable controllers (PLCs) (Siemens 2 iii). Siemens 2 states that “some information relates to CFC functionality that is relevant only in a PCS 7 [(Process Control System (SIMATIC))] context” (Siemens 2 iii, B-2). We note that Siemens discloses an operator system that uses SIMATIC PCS 7 (Siemens 1). In other words, Siemens 2 teaches applying the CFC functionality to the process control system of Siemens. In this case, the Examiner’s finding that combining Siemens, Siemens 2 and Kempf would have been the predictable use of prior art elements (i.e., CFCs) according to their established function (process control in a plant or industrial setting) is in fact taught by Siemens and Siemens 2. This teaching underscores the Examiner’s rationale for combining these references based on advancing the techniques used by a control system. The Examiner relies on Kempf as an additional reference that teaches methods of control of industrial production by means of process visualization (Final Act. 4). Appellant does not specifically contest this finding (Appeal Br. generally). The Examiner’s rejection is not based on impermissible hindsight, but rather the teachings of the references themselves. Appeal 2020-004716 Application 15/131,660 5 On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–4 over Siemens, Kempf and Siemens 2. DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4 103 Siemens, Kempf, Siemens 2 1–4 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED