Ex Parte Ambühl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13609364 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
13/609,364 09/11/2012 Stefan Ambtihl 2011P19451US01 9298
28524 7590 05/01/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
SAMWEL, DANIEL
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFAN AMBUHL, FELIX BRUNNER, ANDREAS HENNIG,
EDGAR VIS, HANSPETER GROSSELE, RENATO COLCERASA, and
MICHAEL J. SCHMICKLEY
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,3 641
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—31, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Schweiz AG.
App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed November 9, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 10, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 10, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed June 5,
2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed September 11, 2012
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a “building automation system”
having a centralized control station (i.e., a computer having processing
equipment, data storage equipment, and a user interface) that allows “for
monitoring and control of building automation system [BAS] devices [i.e.,
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) subsystems, such as
controllers, sensors, actuators, room control subsystems, air handling unit
subsystems]” from different manufacturers with different data formats.
Spec. 1:6—8, 2:5—12, 3:17—20. This way, the building automation system
can access, manage, monitor and control operations of different BAS
devices without having to “require specific programming for every different
brand or style of building automation system [BAS] device.” Spec. 3:17—20.
Abstract.
Representative Claim
Claims 1,17, and 29 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics'.
1. An arrangement for use in a building automation system,
comprising:
a memory storing programming instructions and a
plurality of data values including data values corresponding to
each of a first object data record having a first format and second
object data record having a second format different from the first
format, wherein the first object data record corresponds to a first
building automation system (BAS) device, and the second object
data record corresponds to a second BAS device,
a display;
a user input device;
2
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
a processing circuit operably coupled to the memory and
the display, the processing circuit configured, when executing
the programming instructions, to receive additional data values
from one or more BAS devices via a network;
store the additional data values in the memory;
request within a software operation data pertaining
to the first object data record;
retrieve a stored object type definition that defines
a third format;
retrieve at least one data value corresponding to the
first object data record from the memory;
map the at least one data value corresponding to the
first object data record to the third format;
provide the requested data based on the mapped at
least one data value to the software operation;
execute the software operation to generate at least
a portion of a display graphic on the display, the
appearance of the portion of the display graphic
corresponding at least in part to the mapped at least one
data value.
App. Br. 18—25 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections & References
(1) Claims 1—7, 15, 16, and 29-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Imhof et al. (US 2004/0210348
Al; published Oct. 21, 2004; “Imhof’). Final Act. 2—10.
(2) Claims 8—14 and 17—28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Imhof and Agrusa et al. (US
2009/0210071 Al; published Aug. 20, 2009). Final Act. 11-19.
3
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether Imhof teaches Appellants’ claimed “processing circuit” configured
to perform several functions, including:
(i) “map the at least one data value corresponding to the first
object data record to the third format” and
(ii) “execute the software operation to generate at least a
portion of a display graphic on the display, the appearance of the
portion of the display graphic corresponding at least in part to the
mapped at least one data value,”
as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 29. App. Br. 9-14; Reply
Br. 2-6.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1—7, 15, 16, and 29—31
With respect to independent claims 1 and 29, the Examiner finds
Imhof teaches an arrangement for use in a building automation system,
shown in Figure 1, equipped with all the claimed components, including: (1)
database 120 including memory (Final Act. 2 (citing Imhof H 29, 42, 53));
(2) display 110 (id. at 3 (citing Imhof H 30, 54)); see also Imhof 132; (3)
user input device (id. at 3 (citing Imhof 148)); and (4) processing circuit in
the form of centralized control station 110 including adapter 120, shown in
Figure 2, configured to perform the recited functions, including:
(i) “map the at least one data value corresponding to
the first object data record to the third format” (id. at 4 (citing
Imhof 1 53)), and
4
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
(ii) “execute the software operation to generate at least
a portion of a display graphic on the display, the appearance of
the portion of the display graphic corresponding at least in part
to the mapped at least one data value.” {Id. at 5 (citing Imhof
1 54)).
Imhof s Figure 2 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
212
110
Imhof’s Figure 2 shows centralized control station 110 including
adapter 206 arranged to convert or map data between various formats
employed by various BAS devices and format used by application layer
202/building data management system 204. Imhof 142.
Appellants acknowledge ‘Tt]he function of the adapter in Imho f is to
convert (i.e.: man) the different device data formats to a common format
used by the building automation system.” App. Br. 10, 12 (citing Imhof
1142, 50). However, Appellants argue “Imhof adapter 206 is concerned
with finding a common driver to facilitate communication between the
5
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
devices and the building data management system” and, as such, “is not
the same as the claimed arrangement” [which] “provides generic functions
for various common elements and subsystems of building automatic devices,
and maps data from the devices to a generic function definition.” App. Br.
10-12. According to Appellants, “NOT ALL ADAPTERS ARE
CREATED EQUAL!” and “[njothing in the cited portions of Imhof
discloses that the adapter map the specific data as “arranged in the claims.”
App. Br. 12-13.
Appellants also argue
[njeither the adapter 206, nor application layer 202 of
Imhof discloses such a processing circuit as arranged in the
claims, nor has the Examiner identified where these features may
be found. Again, as recited in the claims it is the processing
circuit, under the control of programming instructions, that
retrieves an object type definition having a third format, and
maps the data value corresponding to the first record to the third
format. The processing device provides the requested data based
on the mapped data value to a software operation for generating
a display.
The Examiner has yet to identify where in Imhof it
discloses that the adapter 206 stores a definition having a third
format, and map the at least one data value corresponding to the
first object data record to the third format. Instead, the Examiner
merely concludes that the adapter 206 converts data into a
common format, without identifying how this conversion is
performed, and how this common format is equivalent to the
first, second or third formats.
App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4—6.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive or commensurate
with the scope of Appellants’ claims 1 and 29. Instead, we find the
Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
6
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2—6. As such, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and explanations. Id. At the outset, we note
Appellants’ claims 1 and 29 are broadly worded and do not distinguish over
Imhof. As recognized by the Examiner, Imhof s adapter 206 [included in
control station 110, shown in Figure 2] “is a device driver system that
converts or maps data between the format employed by the application layer
202/building data management system 204 and the format employed by the
various building control devices.” Ans. 3 (citing Imhof 142). Because of
Imhof’s adapter 206 is used to handle format conversion from various
building automation system [BAS] devices, Imhof’s building automation
system is able to access, manage, monitor and control operations of different
BAS devices from different manufacturers with different data formats in the
same way as disclosed by Appellants’ Specification, without having to
“require specific programming for every different brand or style of building
automation system [BAS] device.” Spec. 3:17—20.
Separately, we also note there is no requirement that the prior art must
use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as
teaching or disclosing that claim element. “[T]he reference need not satisfy
an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re
Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Even in anon-obviousness
setting, it is proper to take into account not only the literal and specific
teachings of the reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826 (CCPA 1968). The Examiner’s assertions regarding what an
ordinary skill in the art “would have understood” conveys the understanding
of one with ordinary skill in the art with respect to what is disclosed by the
7
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
prior art, not what would have been obvious over the prior art. Prior art
references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
For example, Imhof teaches various BAS devices can have various
formats. Imhof |42. A skilled artisan “would have understood” that those
formats could be “a first format”, “a second format” and “a third format” in
the manner recited in Appellants’ claims 1 and 29 when “two or more BAS
devices are connected and using their own data formats.” Ans. 5 (citing
Imhof 142). As such, we agree with the Examiner that “Imhof discloses
receiving data values from a BAS device, finding a third common format in
which to map the data values to and mapping the data values to that third
common format.” Ans. 5.
Lastly, and contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we agree with the
Examiner that Imhof teaches the limitation: “execute the software operation
to generate at least a portion of a display graphic on the display, the
appearance of the portion of the display graphic corresponding at least in
part to the mapped at least one data value” in the context of Imhof’s control
station 110, shown in Figure 2, that “obtains the converted data from the
adapter 206 and makes the data available to the application of the
application layer 202” including “data to be displayed locally.” Final Act. 5,
7 (citing Imhof | 54).
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 29, and their respective
dependent claims 2—7, 15—16, 30, and 31, which Appellants do not argue
separately. App. Br. 14.
8
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 8—14 and 17—28
In support of the obviousness rejection of independent claim 17, the
Examiner further relies on Agrusa for teaching additional functions of
Appellants’ claimed “processing circuit” as including:
“generate a graphic display including a plurality of icons and an
movable cursor, wherein a first icon is associated with the first
object data record;
position the movable cursor based on user input;
retrieve from the memory at least one data value pertaining to the
first object data record responsive to location of the movable
cursor over the first icon.”
Final Act. 13 (citing Agrusa H 50, 55, Figure 8).
In addition to the alleged deficiencies of Imhof as discussed in
connection with claim 1, Appellants further argue Agrusa does not cure the
deficiencies of Imhof because (1) “[n]othing in Agrusa discloses the
location of the cursor relative to an icon as a trigger for retrieving data”
and (2) “nothing in Agrusa teaches or suggests: an arrangement that. . .
retrieves an object type definition having a third format, and maps the data
value corresponding to the first record to the third format.” App. Br. 15—16.
We remain unpersuaded and adopt the Examiner’s response on pages
6—7 of the Examiner’s Answer. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 17 and the remaining claims 8—
14 and 18—28, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 16;
Reply Br. 6.
9
Appeal 2016-008068
Application 13/609,364
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—7, 15, 16, and 29-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or claims 8—14 and 17—28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—31.
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