Ex Parte CHALAPURADUDI BANDIGOWDA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13753835 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT 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.
13/753,835 01/30/2013 Anandkumar CHALAPURADUDI BANDIGOWDA 5029-1054-330831.000 9025
27799 7590 08/02/2018
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park A venue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
EXAMINER
SHECHTMAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2115
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
patentsecretary@cozen.com
patentdocket@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 ANANDKUMAR CHALAPURADUDI BANDIGOWDA and
SUNEESH PUTHIYONNAN
Appeal2018-000146
Application 13/753,835
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-9, and 11-16. Claims 5 and 10 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a human-machine interface device
that is configured to interconnect to another human-machine interface
device. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A human-machine interface device of an industrial
automation system comprising a plurality of programmable-logic
Appeal 2018-000146
Application 13/753,835
controllers and a plurality of the human-machine interface devices, the
human-machine interface device comprising:
at least one hardware resource;
a system bus for providing a communication channel between
the at least one hardware resource within a human-machine interface
device of the industrial automation system including the plurality of
programmable-logic controllers;
an interconnect circuit comprising at least one interconnect port
configured for interconnecting the human-machine interface device to
at least one other human-machine interface device to form a device
cluster;
means for providing a communication channel between the at
least one interconnect port and the system bus; and
a discovery module configured to retrieve information related
to the at least one hardware resource in at least one other human-
machine inteiface device in the device cluster so as to configure
different modes associated with the human-machine interface device
and the at least one other human-machine interface device.
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Abrams (US 6,587,739 Bl; July 1, 2003) and
Appellants' admitted prior art.
Claims 8, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Abrams, Appellants' admitted prior art, and Batio (US
2008/0062625 Al; Mar. 13, 2008).
Claims 1--4, 6-9, and 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Sven (US 2003/0005099 Al; Jan. 2, 2003) and
Sackmann (US 5,131,092; July 14, 1992).
2
Appeal 2018-000146
Application 13/753,835
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Sven and Sackmann
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-9; see also
Reply Br. 6-7) that the combination of Sven and Sackmann would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "a
discovery module configured to retrieve information related to the at least
one hardware resource in at least one other human-machine interface device
in the device cluster so as to configure different modes associated with the
human-machine interface device and the at least one other human-machine
interface device."
The Examiner found that clients 210 of Sven, which includes general-
purpose computing devices, as illustrated in Figure 2, correspond to the
limitation "a discovery module configured to retrieve information related to
the at least one hardware resource in at least one other human-machine
interface device in the device cluster so as to configure different modes
associated with the human-machine interface device and the at least one
other human-machine interface device." (Ans. 5---6; see also Final Act. 15-
16.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
Sven relates to home automation systems, in particular, "an event
manager within such systems that provides property information and
property change information of the devices being controlled." (i-f 1.)
Figure 2 of Sven illustrates a block diagram of a home area network
environment (i-f 32), which includes devices 205 and clients 210 connected to
network medium 236 (i-f 33). Sven explains that "clients 210 are generally
User Interface (UI) components that allow a user to interact with and
remotely control the software controllable devices 205 via software
3
Appeal 2018-000146
Application 13/753,835
instructions." (i-f 34.) Moreover, Sven explains that "properties for devices
205 may have binary values ( e.g., on or off) or they may have a range of
values (e.g., to set the intensity level)." (i-f 37.) Sven also explains that
"event manager 250" provides functionality "for a client 210 to readily learn
the status of one or more properties of any given device 205." (i-f 45.) Sven
further explains that clients 210 include general-purpose computing devices,
for example, notebook (laptop) computer 49, hand-held computing device
63, or desktop PC/server 20. (i-f 34.) Sven also explains that devices 205
include electronics or appliances, for example, video device (VCR) 214 or
television 222. (i-f 35.) Because Sven explains that clients 210 ( e.g.,
notebook (laptop) computer 49, hand-held computing device 63, or desktop
PC/server 20) provide a user interface to allow the user to check the status of
and remotely control devices 205 (e.g., video device 213 or television 222),
such as turning devices 205 on or off, Sven teaches or suggests the limitation
"a discovery module configured to retrieve information related to the at least
one hardware resource in at least one other human-machine interface device
in the device cluster so as to configure different modes associated with the
human-machine interface device and the at least one other human-machine
interface device."
Appellants argue that "apart from merely citing broad sections of ...
Sven, the Examiner has failed to specifically identify a 'discovery module'
within ... Sven that corresponds to the 'discovery module."' (App. Br. 8-9;
see also Reply Br. 6-7.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner
found that clients 210 of Sven correspond to the limitation "discovery
module." (Ans. 5---6.) Moreover, Appellants have not provided any
4
Appeal 2018-000146
Application 13/753,835
evidence or arguments as to why the Examiner's findings with respect to
Sven are improper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Sven and
Sackmann would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation "a discovery module configured to retrieve
information related to the at least one hardware resource in at least one other
human-machine interface device in the device cluster so as to configure
different modes associated with the human-machine interface device and the
at least one other human-machine interface device."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2--4 and 6-8 depend from claim 1, and
Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to these claims for this rejection. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 2--4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sven and Sackmann,
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 14 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain this rejection of claims 9 and 14, as well as dependent claims 11-
13, 15, and 16, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Remaining§ 103 Rejections
We do not reach the additional cumulative rejections of claims 1--4,
6-9, and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over various
combinations of Abrams, Appellants' admitted prior art, and Batio.
Affirmance of the obviousness rejection based on Sven and Sackmann
5
Appeal 2018-000146
Application 13/753,835
discussed previously renders it unnecessary to reach the remaining
obviousness rejections, as claims 1--4, 6-9, and 11-16 have been addressed
and found unpatentable. Cf In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (not reaching additional obviousness rejections).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-9, and 11-16 under
§ 103(a) over Sven and Sackmann 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6