Ex Parte Batke et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 22, 2009

09967742 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 22, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte BRIAN A. BATKE, GARY W. BACZKOWSKI, and
KENWOOD H. HALL
________________

Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742
Technology Center 2400
________________

Decided: January 22, 2009
________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-18 and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented an industrial control system for controlling an
industrial process that includes a plurality of control devices that provide
control signals, a web access module that includes a web server, an Internet
interface, and a control network interface.1 In a specific implementation of
the invention, each of the control devices includes web page data concerning
a web page associated with the respective control device.2 The Internet
interface is capable of being coupled to a remote device via the Internet, and
the control network interface is coupled to the plurality of control devices.3
A remote device is able to send requests to the web access module for access
to the web pages associated with the control devices.4 In response to the
requests, the web access module obtains the web page data concerning the
web pages for which access has been requested, processes the data at the
web server, and sends data signals related to the data onto the Internet to be
received by the remote device.5
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An industrial control system for controlling an industrial
process comprising:

a plurality of control devices providing control signals to
direct the industrial process, wherein each of the control devices
includes web page data concerning a respective web page
associated with the respective control device;

1 See generally Abstract; Spec. 11.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

3
a web access module including a web server, an Internet
interface and a control network interface,

wherein the Internet interface is capable of being coupled
to a remote device via the Internet, and wherein the control
network interface is coupled to the plurality of control devices;

wherein the web access module is capable of receiving
requests from the remote device to access any of the web pages
associated with the plurality of control devices identified by an
Internet address unique to a control device; and

wherein, in response to receiving the requests, the web
access module obtains the web page data concerning the web
pages for which access has been requested, processes the web
page data at the web server, and sends data signals related to the
web page data onto the Internet to be received by the remote
device.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Tadokoro U.S. 6,463,352 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
Dodd U.S. 6,505,086 B1 Jan. 7, 2003
Fowler U.S. 6,714,977 B1 Mar. 30, 2004

1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-15, 18, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Fowler and Tadokoro.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fowler, Tadokoro and Dodd.

Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

4
THE REJECTION OVER FOWLER AND TADOKORO
CLAIMS 1, 3-4, 7-18, and 26
The Examiner found that that the application of Fowler as a "Room
Climate Monitor," which is shown in FIG. 12 of Fowler, is an industrial
control system (Ans. 8). In addition, the Examiner found that "the room
climate monitor previously shown in Figure 2D is an example of Fowler
teaching a control network" (Id. at 9).
The Examiner also found that Appellants did not claim a (1) "control
network that cannot support the IP protocol;" (2) serving web pages
associated with devices separated from the server by a network; and (3) a
browser identifying a web page by an IP address of a control device that is
not a server (Ans. 9-10).
In addition, the Examiner concluded that the web pages of Fowler
were inherently presented on a web server, and every server on the Internet
must have an IP address to function (Id. at 10).
The Examiner also found that "Fowler failed to specifically disclose
the plurality of control devices providing control signals to direct an
industrial process, where each control device was specifically identified by
an unique IP address" (Ans. 5). Additionally, the Examiner found that
"Tadokoro, in the same field of monitoring endeavor, disclosed a plurality of
control devices providing control signals to unique IP address devices to
direct an industrial process integrated with web pages" (Id.).
The Examiner also concluded that Appellants define an industrial
control system as a plurality of control devices providing control signals to
direct the industrial process, and a web access module including a web
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

5
server, an Internet interface and a control network interface' (Id. at 8). The
Examiner found that Tadokoro's system for managing and allocating jobs
among cutting machines is an industrial control system per the definition
given by Applicants (Id. at 10). The Examiner also concluded that Tadokoro
"taught clearly the use of devices with specified IP addresses" (Id. at 9).
The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a PLC
monitoring system taught by Tadokoro with the Fowler sensor monitoring
system in order to monitor and control more devices over the Internet for
external users" (Id. at 5).
Appellants' Arguments
Appellants argue that Fowler and Tadokoro do not teach an industrial
control system (Reply Br. 2). Appellants argue that both Fowler and
Tadokoro monitor equipment by receiving signals (Id.). In particular,
Appellants argue that Fowler and Tadokoro do not output signals to the
equipment to control the equipment (Id.). With regards to Tadokoro,
Appellants also argue that the allocation of jobs is not the control of a
cutting machine because job allocation would not require real-time control
(Id. at 7). Further, Appellants argue that the allocation of jobs is likely done
with a network of personal computers, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would assume that the network of Tadokoro "is a single standard Internet-
compatible network, thus failing to teach the present invention's requirement
of a control network interface and an Internet interface, and in fact, teaching
away from these requirements" (Id.).
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

6
Additionally, Appellants argue that Fowler and Tadokoro do not teach
a control network (Id. at 3). Appellants argue that Fowler's network is an
interconnection between standard computers, implicit of a type suitable for
"IP protocol" (IP is the abbreviation for Internet Protocol) (App. Br. 10;
Reply Br. 6). Appellants assert that their invention (1) allows a control
device, for example, an I/O (input/output) module to be added into a control
system, and (2) provides for serving web pages with up-to-date info about
the I/O module, while Fowler does not teach this concept (App. Br. 10-11;
Reply Br. 7).
With regards to Tadokoro, Appellants argue Tadokoro uses a standard
computer network that supports IP protocols directly (App. Br. 12). Further,
Appellants argue that while such a network might be used for control,
Tadokoro teaches away from the present invention which allows web pages
to be served on control networks "that may not readily support IP data
transmissions" (Id.). Appellants argue that a control network does not
support IP protocol (Reply Br. 6). However, Appellants appear to argue that
their invention is still useable because the "IP addresses from the browser
(received over the Internet) are mapped to MAC addresses that may be sent
over the industrial control network" (Id.).
Appellants argue that "Fowler does not teach serving web pages
associated with devices separated from the server by a network" (App. Br.
10). Further, Appellants assert that "the only web pages in Fowler are
associated with the bots, which are also servers" (Id.) (underlining omitted).
Appellants acknowledge that the "net-bot of Fowler does communicate with
remote devices over a computer network, but does not serve web pages
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

7
associated with those devices" (underlining omitted) (Id.). In addition,
Appellants argue that "Fowler teaches one device that holds both the web
pages and the server, and which therefore does not serve web pages
associated with devices separated from the server by a network" (Reply Br.
5) (underlining omitted).
With regards to Tadokoro, Appellants assert that "even when
combined with Fowler, the Examiner has not found any teaching or
suggestion of web pages associated with devices separated from the server
by a network" (Id. at 8) (underlining omitted). Further, Appellants argue
that it is "not sufficient that Tadokoro teaches web pages in an industrial
environment because Fowler clearly teaches that the web page data is at the
server, not at the devices remote to the server on a network counter to the
present invention" (Id.) (underlining omitted).
In addition, Appellants argue that Fowler does not teach "a browser
identifying a web page by an IP address of a control device that is not a
server" (App. Br. 10). Appellants admit that the bots of Fowler "implicitly
have IP addresses, but are each web servers" (Id.). Further, Appellants argue
that the "addresses of the polled devices are not used by a browser" (Id.).
With regards to Tadokoro, Appellants agree with the Examiner that
Tadokoro teaches that the computers associated with the bandsaws may have
IP addresses, but Appellants assert that the browsers do not use those IP
addresses to obtain web pages (Reply Br. 8).
Appellants' arguments with regards to representative claim 1 will also
apply to independent claim 26.

Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

8
ISSUE
The issue before us, then, is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that prior art teaches or suggests the limitations of
the independent claims. The issue turns on whether the prior art teaches or
suggests (1) an industrial control system; (2) a control network; (3) control
devices associated with web page data; and (4) control devices having a
unique IP address.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Specification of the present application discloses that an
"industrial control system can take a variety of forms." The Specification of
the present application states that "[i]ndustrial control systems used to
control and monitor industrial processes often employ programmable logic
controllers" and gives examples of industrial control systems that include
programmable logic controllers (PLCs). In addition, the Specification of the
present application states that "industrial control systems can take other
forms that can include, for example, other types of control devices." (See
Spec. 2, l. 16 to 3, l. 3).
2. An embodiment of an industrial control system of the present
application includes "a plurality of control devices providing control signals
to direct the industrial process, and a web access module including a web
server, an Internet interface and a control network interface” (Spec. 4, ll. 27-
29).
3. Claim 1 requires that "each of the control devices includes web page
data concerning a respective web page associated with the respective control
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

9
device" (App. Br. 16). Claim 26 further requires that the web page data
includes HTML data (Id. at 20). While claim 1 also requires that the
plurality of control devices are identified by an Internet address unique to a
control device, claim 26 does not (Id. at 16, 20).
4. The Specification discloses that "web page data can include all data
that is required by the web server 40 in order to generate the particular web
page, for example, hypertext markup language (html) documents and
graphic files" (Spec. 7, ll. 3-6). In addition, the Specification states that "[i]n
alternate embodiments, the web page data only includes a limited amount of
data that can be indicative of a particular status or other condition of the
control device or an element or aspect of the industrial control process being
controlled, such as a device ID and a single alphanumeric character
representative of a temperature or other measurement parameter" (Spec. 7,
ll. 6-10).
5. Webopedia defines a web page as a "document on the World Wide
Web. Additionally, Webopedia states that "[e]very web page is identified by
a unique URL (Uniform Resource Locator).” Webopedia,
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/web_page.html, (Jan. 18, 2002).
6. Fowler discloses that modern computer systems cannot tolerate excess
heat, dust or humidity, and heat can rapidly cause equipment deterioration.
Further, Fowler discloses that "[s]olutions do exist for monitoring computer
networks and equipment to prevent such failures." (See Fowler, col. 1, ll. 52-
53).
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

10
7. A network is defined as "an interconnected or interrelated chain,
group, or system." WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY
1520 (1971).
8. Fowler discloses that many businesses have server rooms that include
computer equipment. Further, Fowler states that modern computer systems
cannot tolerate excess heat, dust or humidity, and heat can rapidly cause
equipment deterioration. Fowler also discloses that "[s]olutions do exist for
monitoring computer networks and equipment to prevent such failures." (See
Fowler, col. 1, ll. 44-56). Figure 2 of Fowler illustrates a climate bot 28 that
can connect via a standard Ethernet connection to a bridge router 26. A
company web server 30 is connected to bridge router 26 and, through bridge
router 26, can be connected to an internal client 24 on a company intranet or
to an external client 22 via the internet. External client 22 can connect to
climate bot 28 via a dial-up internet connection or other internet connection
to obtain the status of server room 10 monitored parameters. (See Fowler,
col. 6, ll. 27-44; Fig. 2).
9. One embodiment of the computer network and equipment monitoring
method of Fowler is referred to as a "rack bot." The rack bot can be
mounted within a component rack. When mounted in the rack, individual
components within a rack 12 can be monitored and a web page can be
provided for each component. (Fowler, col. 9, ll. 7-22).
10. Tadokoro discloses that "[o]ne or many cutting machines 1 are
arranged, for example, on the shop floor of a facility." Tadokoro also
discloses that "[e]ach cutting machine 1 is instrumented with various outputs
and sensors," which are connected to a data acquisition device. In addition,
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

11
Tadokoro discloses that the "data acquisition device 3 has several analog or
digital inputs, and can connect to another device via a bus or interface."
(Tadokoro, col. 7, l. 64 to col. 8, l. 8) (bolding omitted). Tadokoro also
discloses a cutting management system that monitors and controls cutting
element usage, inventory and costs (Tadokoro, col. 5. ll. 26-50).
11. Tadokoro discloses controlling software components for cutting
machines that can be placed on any convenient processor or network.
Tadokoro also discloses that each component is provided with its own
network address, for example, IP or network address. (See Tadokoro,
Abstract). In addition, Tadokoro discloses that virtual machine (VM)
component 5 performs at least two functions: (1) reading the status of an
array of the cutting machine and (2) responding to requests for a new status
array of status information (Tadokoro, col. 17, ll. 33-37). While Tadokoro
discloses that one VM component per machine 1 is preferred, a single VM
component could alternatively collect data from a subset of machines 1 (e.g.,
when a group of machines 1 is considered a working unit) (Tadokoro, col.
17, ll. 17-20). Tadokoro also discloses that a VM component may be
characterized by identity, name, and network address (Tadokoro, col. 18. ll.
8-13).
12. Claim 2 requires that the web page data includes HTML data. Claim
5 requires that the web page data includes a hyperlink. Claim 6 requires that
the web page data includes at least one of a banner ad and a JAVA applet.
Claims 16 requires that the web page data includes xml data. Claim 17
depends on claim 16 and requires that xslt data is stored at one of the web
access module and remote data storage unit (See App. Br. 16-17 and 19).
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

12
13. Fowler discloses a computer network and equipment monitoring
method and system that is capable of processing HTML standards (Fowler,
col. 2, ll. 63-67). A system of Fowler can include a JAVA microprocessor
(Fowler, col. 3, ll. 55-60). A system of Fowler could also provide for the
creation of a link to a web site, such that a user could click on the link and
get, for example, a real-time image of goods offered for sale (Fowler, col.
13, ll. 19-34).
14. Claim 3 requires that "the web page data included on at least on of the
plurality of control devices includes all web information needed by the
remote device in order for a browser program at the remote device to
formulate the respective at least one web page" (App. Br. 17).
15. Fowler discloses a video climate bot 34 that can provide the
administrator of a large network system to tour server rooms remotely, via
the internet or an intranet (Fowler, col. 8, ll. 4-9). Fowler also discloses that
a net bot 40 can have the same functionality as video climate bot 34 and can
additionally provide the capability to detect a power failure or loss of an IP
connection within a computer network (Fowler, col. 8, ll. 15-20). Beyond
receiving notification via email of a fault, a system administrator, or other
user can obtain real-time reports of environmental conditions and equipment
conditions in a server room via an internet connection to net bot 40.
Additionally, like video climate bot 34, a current video image of the
monitored server room 10 could also be viewed via the internet. (See
Fowler, col. 8, ll. 58-66).
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

13
16. Claim 16 requires that "each of the requests to access each of the
respective web pages associated with the control devices includes only a
respective IP address" (App. Br. 19).
17. Fowler discloses that its invention "searches for equipment that is
either on or off line and uses the static IP address, among other identifiers to
address and locate the device.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claims must “particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. During patent examination, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by skilled artisans. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). “It is the claims that measure
the invention.” SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d
1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). A basic canon of claim construction
is that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written
description. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Discussing the question
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

14
of obviousness of claimed subject matter involving a combination of known
elements, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), explains:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations
of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida
v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976) and Anderson's-
Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57
(1969) are illustrative—a court must ask whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.

Id. at 1740. If the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly characterized as
involving the simple substitution of one known element for another or the
mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement, a holding of obviousness can be based on a showing that
“there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed.” Id. at 1740-41. Such a showing requires:
“‘some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.”

Id. at 1741 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

15
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
Industrial Control System and Control Network
At the outset, we will first construe the term "industrial control
system." Appellants' Specification discloses that an "industrial control
system can take a variety of forms" (FF 1). While the Specification states
that industrial control devices often employ PLCs, the Specification also
states “industrial control systems can take other forms that can include, for
example, other types of control devices" (FF 1).
Appellants argue that Fowler and Tadokoro do not teach or suggest an
industrial control system, as each system monitors equipment and does not
output signals to the equipment. However, independent claim 1 requires an
industrial control system that includes control devices providing control
signals to direct an industrial process (FF 3). Claim 1 does not require
outputting signals to equipment as maintained by Appellants (FF 3). Thus,
we conclude that Appellants are arguing limitations beyond the express
limitations recited in independent claim 1. We note that patentability is
based upon the language of the claims.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the climate
bot 28 of Fowler is an industrial control system. Fowler discloses that many
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

16
businesses have server rooms that include computer equipment. Further,
Fowler states that modern computer systems cannot tolerate excess heat,
dust or humidity, and heat can rapidly cause equipment deterioration (FF 8).
Fowler also discloses that "[s]olutions do exist for monitoring computer
networks and equipment to prevent such failures” (FF 8). We find that one
of ordinary skill in the art would consider transmission of data regarding the
status of the server system as control signals that direct an industrial process,
as the process of how failures will be prevented in the server room will be
directed by the status information provided by the climate bot 28.
With regards to Tadokoro, Appellants argue that the allocation of jobs
is not the control of a cutting machine because job allocation would not
require real-time control (Reply Br. 7). Claim 1 does not require real-time
control. Again, Appellants are arguing limitations that are not found in the
express language of independent claim 1. Tadokoro discloses cutting
machines that are arranged on a shop floor that include outputs and sensors
that are connected to a data acquisition device (FF 10). Tadokoro also
discloses a cutting management system that monitors and controls cutting
element usage, inventory and costs Id. at 10. Thus, we conclude that one of
ordinary skill in the art would clearly have considered Tadokoro an
industrial control system.
Appellants also argue that Fowler and Tadokoro do not teach a control
network (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 3, 6-8). Appellants argue that Fowler's
network is an interconnection between standard computers, implicit of a type
suitable for IP protocol. (App. Br. 10). Appellants assert that their invention
allows (1) a control device, for example, an I/O module to be added into a
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

17
control system, and (2) serve web pages with up-to-date info about the I/O
module, while Fowler does not teach this concept (App. Br. 10-11; Reply
Br. 7). However, again Appellants are arguing limitations that are not found
in the express language of independent claim 1. Claim 1 does not set forth
limitations to determine what is and what is not a control network.
With regards to Tadokoro, Appellants argue Tadokoro uses a standard
computer network that supports IP protocols directly (App. Br. 12). Further,
Appellants argue that while such a network might be used for control,
Tadokoro teaches away from the present invention which allows web pages
to be served on control networks "that may not readily support IP data
transmissions" (Id.). Appellants argue that a control network does not
support IP protocol (Reply Br. 6). Again, Appellants are arguing limitations
that are not found in the express language of independent claim 1. Claim 1
does not set forth limitations to determine what is and what is not a control
network.
During patent examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
skilled artisans. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1316. As found above,
both Fowler and Tadokoro teach control systems. In light of the
specification, we give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the definition
of network, which is an interconnected or interrelated chain, group, or
system (FF 7). Both Fowler and Tadokoro teach a group of interrelated
components (FF 8 and 10). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find
that examples of networks would include (1) the climate bot system of Fig. 2
of Fowler, and (2) the cutting management system of Tadokoro that includes
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

18
outputs and sensors, which are connected to a data acquisition device that
could be connected to another device via a bus or interface (FF 8 and 10).
Appellants also argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
assume that the network of Tadokoro is a single standard Internet-
compatible network, which teaches away from the present invention's
requirement of a control network and an Internet interface (Reply Br. 7).
We disagree. We find no express teaching away from these requirements in
Tadokoro. We find that Tadokoro teaches a control network and suggests
the use of IP addresses, which would necessarily imply that an Internet
interface would be required.
Web Pages and a Unique Internet Address Associated with Each
Control Device
We now turn our attention to whether the prior art teaches control
devices associated with web page data and control devices that have a
unique IP address. Appellants argue that Fowler does not teach serving web
pages associated with devices separated from the server by a network (App.
Br. 10). However, Appellants' independent claim 1 does not expressly claim
this. Appellants also argued that Fowler does not teach a browser
identifying a web page by an IP address of a control device that is not a
server (Id.). Again, this was not expressly claimed in the language of
independent claim 1.
Appellants claim language requires that "each of the control devices
includes web page data concerning a respective web page associated with
the respective control device" and that the plurality of control devices are
"identified by an Internet address unique to a control device" (FF 3). Fowler
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

19
discloses a rack bot monitoring system that has components associated with
web pages (FF 9). As web pages, by definition, are assigned their own IP
address, the components of the rack bot system, i.e. the control devices, will
necessarily have a unique identifier associated with them, by virtue of the
web page associated with the individual component (FF 5).
Tadokoro discloses controlling software components for cutting
machines that can be placed on any convenient processor or network (FF
11). Tadokoro also discloses that each component is provided with its own
network address, for example, IP or network address (FF 11). Thus,
Tadokoro also discloses components that have a unique identifier.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error
in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and claims 2-15 and 18 that
fall with claim 1. Appellants argued independent claim 26 along with
independent claim 1 (App. Br. 8). Thus, we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 26, since Appellants have grouped this claim with
independent claim 1.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 16 and 17
With respect to dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 16, and 17, Appellants argue
that claims 2, 5, 6, 16, and 17 "expressly require web data that is one of
'HTML,' 'hyperlinks,' 'java applets,' 'banner ads' or 'xml tags' or a web server
that can handle xml protocols" (App. Br. 13). For example, Appellants
argue that Tadokoro and Fowler do not teach "storing HTML, hyperlinks,
java applets, banner ads or xml tags in a control device, and transmitting that
data over a network to be served by a remote web server" (App. Br. 13).
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

20
Further, Appellants argue that if Fowler and Tadokoro store web data, then
that storage is on the server and not on a non-web serving device (Id).
Claim 2 requires that the web page data includes HTML data (FF 12).
Claim 5 requires that the web page data includes a hyperlink (FF 12). Claim
6 requires that the web page data includes at least one of a banner ad and a
JAVA applet (FF 12). Fowler discloses systems that support HTML and
JAVA processing. Fowler also discloses systems that include hyperlinks. It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the system
of Fowler can support HTML, JAVA and hyperlink processing, then any
component of the system that involves web data, would also be capable of
supporting HTML, JAVA and hyperlink processing.
The components of the "rack bot" system may have a web pages
associated with them (FF 9). As they are components of a system of Fowler,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the web
pages on a component of a system of Fowler, would thus be capable of
including HTML data, a JAVA applet, and a hyperlink.
Thus, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness for claims 2, 5, and 6. Thus, the rejection of
claims 2, 5, and 6 is therefore sustained.
The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fowler, Tadokoro and Dodd. Appellants admit that they
did not address the rejection of claims 16-17 with respect to Dodd.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case
of obviousness for claims 16 and 17. Thus, the rejection of claims 16 and 17
is therefore sustained.
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

21

Claim 3
Appellants separately argue dependent claim 3 (App. Br. 14). Claim 3
requires that the control device includes web page information that would
allow a browser program at a remote device to formulate a web page (FF
14). Appellants argue that Tadokoro and Fowler teach that the information
about the layout of web pages is stored at the server and not at a network
connected to the control device (App. Br. 14). Fowler teaches a net bot 40
that can monitor a server (FF 15). Fowler also teaches that a current video
image of the monitored server room 10 can be viewed via the internet by a
system administrator (FF 15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
that a system administrator would view the real-time status of a server via
the internet through the use of web page data provided by net bot 40.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that
the net bot 40, which collects the data about the server room, would have
been capable of providing all the web page information needed by a system
administrator to view the real-time data about the server room.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness for claim 3. Thus, the rejection of claim 3 is therefore
sustained.
Claim 15
Appellants separately argue dependent claim 15 (App. Br. 14).
Appellants argue that Fowler and Tadokoro both (1) teach only browser
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

22
access to a server, implicitly using the server IP address, and (2) do not teach
direct browser access to a control device web page using only a control
device IP address.
As discussed above, Fowler discloses a rack bot monitoring system
that has components associated with web pages (FF 9). As web pages, by
definition, are assigned their own IP address, the components of the rack bot
system, i.e. the control devices, will necessarily have a unique identifier
associated with them, by virtue of the web page associated with the
individual component (FF 5).
Tadokoro discloses that a single VM component could alternatively
collect data from a subset of machines 1 (e.g., when a group of machines 1 is
considered a working unit) (FF 11). As a VM component may perform two
types of functions (FF 11), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art that when a request was made of a VM component, that it
would not have been enough to identify just the IP address of the VM
component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a
particular machine of the group responsible for handling the request would
have to be specifically identified. Accordingly, the identity of the machine
and the IP address would be needed to access the particular machine in the
group of machines that formed the VM component. Accordingly, one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that where there is only one type of
control device, as in claim 1 of the present invention, the IP address, alone,
would have been sufficient.
Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

23
Accordingly, Tadokoro suggests identifying a VM component by only
an IP address. Thus, as Fowler and Tadokoro are both directed to
monitoring systems (FF 8 and 10), it would also have been obvious to use
only an IP address to identify the individual components of the rack bot
system of Fowler.
Thus, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness for claim 15. Thus, the rejection of claim 15 is
therefore sustained.

OTHER REJECTIONS
Claims 16 and 17
The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fowler, Tadokoro and Dodd. As discussed above,
Appellants admit that they did not address the rejection of claims 16-17 with
respect to Dodd. Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness for claims 16 and 17. Thus, the rejection of
claims 16 and 17 is therefore sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-18 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2008-1896
Application 09/967,742

24
ORDER
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 and 26
is affirmed.
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

msc

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF
ATTENTION: SUSAN M. DONAHUE, E-7F19
1201 SOUTH SECOND STREET
MILWAUKEE WI 53204