Ex Parte Baltes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2012

11285138 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KEVIN M. BALTES and TRENTON W. HAINES
____________________

Appeal 2010-002176
Application 11/285,138
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.
Representative Claim
12. A system for centralization of process sequence
checking, comprising:
memory that stores a set of steps and an order of said
steps in a sequence for a process;
Appeal 2010-002176
Application 11/285,138

2
a control module that determines independently of the
others of said steps in the sequence whether one of said steps
started and whether one of said steps completed; and
a comparator module that determines whether all said
steps in the sequence completed, a sequence fault occurred, and
a sequence fault count exceeded a predefined threshold.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,183,462, issued Jan. 15, 1980
(“Hideshima”)

ISSUES
Does the Examiner err in finding that Hideshima discloses: (1) “a
control module that determines independently of the others of said steps in
the sequence whether one of said steps started and whether one of said steps
completed” as recited in claim 12; (2) “determining whether one of said
steps started independently of others of said steps [and] determining whether
one of said steps completed independently of the others of said steps” as
recited in claim 1; and (3) “determining whether said next expected step is
one of start type and complete type” as recited in claim 11?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or
set aside in the Analysis that follows.

Appeal 2010-002176
Application 11/285,138

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 12
Appellants contend that Hideshima “does not disclose a control
module that determines independently of other steps in a sequence whether
one of the steps started, as claim 12 recites” and instead discloses “the exact
opposite: determining whether a step started depending on the status of a
preceding step.” (Br. 9.)1
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s findings and ultimate legal conclusion that
Hideshima discloses the disputed features of Appellants’ claim 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 for the reasons
set forth in the Answer, which we adopt and incorporate herein by reference.
(Ans. 5-6, 8-9.)
We initially note that Appellants do not provide any limitations as to
what constitutes the determination (what the control module determines),
how the determination is made (how the control module determines), or how
the determination is utilized. Also, the Examiner appears to broadly
construe determining “independently of the others” as an individual
(particular) determination of whether a particular step has started (and also
completed), rather than detecting the progress of step sequences (the
process) as a whole or based on preceding steps – e.g., as in using a counter
to determine the number of executed steps. (Ans. 8-12.) We concur with
the Examiner’s construction and find (as did the Examiner) that Hideshima

1 We refer to Appellants’ Supplemental Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed June 10,
2009.
Appeal 2010-002176
Application 11/285,138

4
discloses such individual determinations (outputting signals from a
differentiator circuit and storing an indication in memory). (Ans. 8-12.)
Further, Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief rebutting the findings and
responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer.
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 12 or dependent claims 13-25
and 27 not separately argued with particularity (Br. 13). It follows that we
affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 12-25 and 27.
Claim 1
As with claim 12 (supra), Appellants contend that Hideshima does not
disclose independent determinations. Specifically, “determining whether
one of said steps started independently of others of said steps” and
“determining whether one of said steps completed independently of the
others of said steps” (claim 1). (See Br. 10-12.)
As with claim 12, based upon the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s findings and ultimate legal conclusion that
Hideshima discloses the disputed features of Appellants’ claim 1. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, which we adopt and incorporate herein by reference (Ans. 3-4, 9-
12), as well as the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12 (supra).
Appellants also do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of dependent claims 2-10 (dependent on claim 1) not separately
argued with particularity. (Br. 13.) Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1-10.

Appeal 2010-002176
Application 11/285,138

5
Claims 11 and 26
Appellants contend that Hideshima “does not disclose determining
whether a next expected step is one of start type and complete type, as Claim
11 recites.” (Br. 12-13.)
Based on the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’
contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record
supports the Examiner’s findings and ultimate legal conclusion that
Hideshima discloses the disputed features of Appellants’ claims. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 11 (dependent on claim
1) and 26 (dependent on claim 12) for the reasons set forth in the Answer,
which we adopt and incorporate herein by reference (Ans. 5, 8, 12-13), as
well as the reasons set forth with respect to claim 12 (supra).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).

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
tkl