Ex Parte Abe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2014

10650236 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

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.
10/650,236 08/28/2003 Tatsutoshi Abe 393032040300 6413
7590 03/27/2014
David L. Fehrman
Morrison & Foerster LLP
35th Floor
555 W. 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
EXAMINER
ANWARI, MACEEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TATSUTOSHI ABE and JUNICHI FUJIMORI
____________

Appeal 2011-010292
Application 10/650,236
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010292
Application 10/650,236

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tatsutoshi Abe, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. §
134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
Claim 1: A command synchronization establishment system
comprising:
a network wherein a cycle master node managing time on
the network periodically transmits a cycle start packet including
time information to each node connected to the network, each
node synchronizes its clock in accordance with the time
information included in the cycle start packet so as to assure
isochronism on the network by sharing the synchronized clock
with each other node, data is periodically transferred by an
isochronous transfer following the cycle start packet, and a
command is transferred by an asynchronous transfer using a
time period after the isochronous transfer until the next cycle
start packet;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Nov. 12, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 4, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Feb. 3, 2011).
Appeal 2011-010292
Application 10/650,236

3
a controller as a node connected to the network,
comprising a transmitter that transmits a command including a
time-stamp based on the synchronized clock to a target
apparatus by using the asynchronous transfer; and
the target apparatus as another node connected to the
network, comprising a receiver that receives the command, a
storage device that temporally stores the received command in
order not to execute the received command instantly, a
transmitter that transmits an interim response to the controller
reflecting that the received command will be executed when a
current time based on the synchronized clock reaches a time
represented by the time-stamp included in the command, an
executing device that executes the received command when the
current time based on the synchronized clock reaches the time
represented by the time-stamp included in the command, and a
replying device that provides a complete response indicating
completion of executing the command.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fujimori
Nakai

US 6,148,051
US 2002/0064185 A1
Nov. 14, 2000
May 30, 2002
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujimori and Nakai.

Appeal 2011-010292
Application 10/650,236

4
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under §103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fujimori and Nakai?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner takes the position that Fujimori discloses
[a] command synchronization establishment system
comprising: a network wherein a cycle master node managing
time on the network periodically transmits a cycle start packet
including time information to each node connected to the
network, each node synchronizes its clock in accordance with
the time information included in the cycle start packet so as to
assure isochronism on the network by sharing the synchronized
clock with each other node
(claim 1). Ans. 3-4. Nakai is relied upon as prior art against the remaining
elements of the claimed system. Ans. 5-6. According to the Examiner, “it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the networking art to
modify or incorporate Nakai’s teachings of waiting until the time stamp time
before executing an action with the teachings of Fujimori, to provide for a
more efficiency in synchronizing systems.” Ans. 6.
The Appellants argue that neither Fujimori (see App. Br. 4) nor Nakai
(see App. Br. 4) discloses “the two-response limitation in claim 1.”
Appeal 2011-010292
Application 10/650,236

5
The argued-over two-response limitation is set forth in claim 1 with
respect to the target apparatus element of the claimed system and, more
specifically, with respect to a transmitter and a reply device of that target
apparatus:
a transmitter that transmits an interim response to the controller
reflecting that the received command will be executed when a
current time based on the synchronized clock reaches a time
represented by the time-stamp included in the command, ..., and
a replying device that provides a complete response indicating
completion of executing the command.
Claim 1; emphasis added. This is illustrated in Figure 3B of the
Specification, which shows an “INTERIM RESPONSE” (reference element
311) from a “TARGET” to a “CONTROLLER” and a “COMPLETE
RESPONSE” (reference element 313) from said “TARGET” to said
“CONTROLLER.”
Since the Examiner relied on Nakai as prior art against the two-
response limitation, we will focus on Nakai in determining whether the
Examiner’s position that Nakai discloses said two-response limitation is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
In that regard the Examiner pointed, in part, to Figures 18 and 24 and
associated disclosure at [0152] and [0153] of Nakai. Ans. 6. Of particular
interest is the disclosure at [0152]. We reproduce it below:
[0152] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing an outline of a
synchronizing system using the time stamp. In FIG. 18, when
synchronizing by the request node N1 and response node N2,
for example, when controlling synchronously by the controller
and each servo driver, it is required to synchronize at a certain
time, that is, synchronous control is necessary, but in such a
case, together with the command content (control content), the
Appeal 2011-010292
Application 10/650,236

6
time for executing this command content (control content) is
sent as the time stamp from the request node N1 to the
response node N2. When the request node N1 is the controller
and the response node N2 is the servo driver, the time stamp is
sent from the controller to each servo driver. The response
node N2 executes the received command content (control
content) when reaching the received time, that is, the time of
the time stamp (time stamp value) t2O.(Emphasis added).
The Examiner equates the actions associated with Nakai’s request node N1
to the claimed “interim response” and the actions associated with Nakai’s
response node N2 to the claimed “complete response.” Ans. 5-6 and 8-9.
The Appellants argue that “[t]here is no disclosure of transmitting the
complete response.” App. Br. 5. The Appellants concede that in Figure 24
Nakai discloses acknowledge packets but “[t]he acknowledge packet is also
different from the recited complete response because it does not indicate
completion of executing the command.” App. Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by the argument. [0152] specifically states that
“[t]he response node N2 executes the received command content (control
content) when reaching the received time, that is, the time of the time stamp
(time stamp value) t2O.” Emphasis added. Also, Nakai discloses, with
respect to Figure 20, that “at the response node N2 side, when reaching the
time indicated by the received time stamp value t22, the received control
content is executed.” [163]. One of ordinary skill in the art would infer
from executing the control content that a complete response has been
transmitted. Cf. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In evaluating
a references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings
of the reference but also inferences which one skilled in the art would
Appeal 2011-010292
Application 10/650,236

7
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.)
The Appellants further argue that contrary to the Examiner’s
assertion, the “read response” in Figures 2 and 5 of Nakai does not teach or
suggest the recited complete response. But we do not see that the Examiner
equated the “read response” in Figures 2 and 5 of Nakai to the claimed
“complete response.” Rather, the Examiner had relied on Figures 2 and 5 to
show “a transmitter that transmits a command including a time-stamp based
on the synchronized clock to a target apparatus by using the asynchronous
transfer” (claim 1, see Ans. 5). Nevertheless, we understand Nakai’s
ReadResponse packet as something the request node (N1) receives. See e.g.,
[0033] (emphasis added):
the cycle timer delay measuring unit transmits a Read packet
from a request node [N1] to a response node [N2], reads the
cycle timer value of the response node, and when the request
node receives a ReadResponse packet including this cycle timer
value being read, calculates the delay deviation amount on the
basis of the difference between the received cycle timer value
and the cycle timer value of the request node.
Consistent therewith, it would be more accurate to equate the claimed
“interim response” to Nakai’s ReadResponse rather than the claimed
“complete response” as the Appellants have argued.
Finally, the “Applicants wish to stress the point that the response node
in Nakai transmits only one response, as opposed to two separate responses
in the present invention.” App. Br. 5. This argument is unpersuasive as to
error in the rejection. First, the argument appears to be inconsistent with the
Appellants’ prior argument that Nakai’s N2 response node transmits no
response. Second, the Examiner did not take position that Nakai discloses
Appeal 2011-010292
Application 10/650,236

8
the N2 response node as transmitting two separate responses. Rather, the
Examiner reasonably broadly construed the claimed “interim response” as
covering the actions associated with Nakai’s N1 request node, not the N2
response node.
For the foregoing reasons, we find a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s position that Nakai discloses said two-response
limitation. The Appellants’ arguments have been reviewed but found
unpersuasive as to error in the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
1 is sustained.

Claim 2 and 4-10
Albeit each of these claims are given separate headings in the Appeal
Brief, the arguments challenging their rejection repeat the arguments
challenging the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons discussed in
finding them unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 1, we find
them unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 2 and 4-10.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 4-10 is
affirmed.

AFFIRMED

tkl