Ex Parte El-Mankabady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

12970742 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/970,742 12/16/2010
28524 7590 08/01/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Emad El-Mankabady
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2010P21954US 6681
EXAMINER
HUYNH, LINDA TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMAD EL-MANKABADY and
KAREN D. LONTKA
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention generally relates to creating a graphical user
interface (GUI) with interface objects for providing information and
manually overriding smoke control systems in buildings to replace
conventional, physical smoke control panels in order "to reduce the amount
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
of space needed to display a building arrangement for a smoke control
system." Spec. 2-3. Appellants' smoke control system uses keys to
associate the smoke control equipment with GUI elements. Spec. 3, 9-10.
The GUI includes control blocks representing the smoke control system
equipment and each control block may have multiple user interface objects
representing elements or functions of the equipment represented by the
control block. Spec. 10-11. Claim 1 is reproduced:
1. A method for generating a graphical user interface for
controlling a smoke control system,
wherein the graphical user interface is based on a computer
generated drawing of a building having a plurality of smoke
control devices for use in the smoke control system having inputs
and outputs,
wherein the computer generated drawing includes position
information for the smoke control devices,
wherein each smoke control device is associated with at least two
keys of a plurality of keys,
wherein each key of the plurality of keys provides an association
between a control block and a user interface object to be included
in the control block,
the method comprising:
receiving the plurality of keys; and
generating the graphical user interface based on the received
plurality of keys so as to display the control blocks associated
with the received plurality of keys in an arrangement based on
the position information for the respective smoke control devices
associated with the received plurality of keys,
wherein at least a portion of the control blocks are generated in a
display format that includes at least two user interface objects for
each control block that facilitate bidirectional communication
with the inputs and outputs of respective smoke control devices,
2
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
based at least in part on a respective set of at least two of the
received plurality of keys that associate each respective control
block to the at least two user interface objects.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 17, and 19--22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Nixon (US 2007/0168060 Al; July 19, 2007)
and Park (US 2009/0307255 Al; Dec. 10, 2009). Final Act. 7-14.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Nixon, Park, and Piersanti (US 2003/0050713
Al; Mar. 13, 2003). Final Act. 14--18.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Nixon, Park, and Lontka (US 2008/0262816 Al; Oct. 23, 2008). Final
Act. 18-19.
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-20
The Examiner finds Nixon teaches every element recited in
independent claims 1, 6, and 11, except that the claimed system is a "smoke
control system" and the claimed devices are "smoke control devices." See
Final Act. 7-9. Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds
Nixon's communication between its field devices and corresponding smart
process objects, which include display elements within its graphic display,
teaches the recited "two user interface objects for each control block that
facilitate bidirectional communication with the inputs and outputs of the
respective control devices." Final Act. 8.
Nixon discloses smart process objects, each of which "represents a
physical device or process plant element" and "defines a graphic display
3
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
element that may be used in a process graphic display depicting that
element." Nixon ,r 94. Nixon discloses that "smart process object 42e may
also include one or more inputs 54 and outputs 56 to enable communication
with other smart process objects" or "between the smart process object 42e
and other objects within the process control system, such as control modules
within the controllers 12, field devices 14, 16, etc." Nixon ,r 48 ( emphasis
added). Nixon also discloses using colors or other graphic properties of
display elements that represent physical elements, such as field devices (e.g.,
a tank) and connection elements (e.g., a conveyor belt), to display properties
of the physical element, such as the status of a conveyor belt ( e.g., running
or stopped). Nixon ,r 66; see also Nixon ,r 67 ("If desired, each of the
piping, duct and conveyor connection elements may graphically and
dynamically reflect a lost connection (e.g., by a color change), and that a
selected property (pressure, temperature, length, etc.) is outside configured
limits ( e.g., by a color change)."). Nixon further discloses using "display
boxes 140" in "graphic display 100 to indicate or expose parameters ...
associated with the different elements." Nixon ,r 91.
Appellants argue, among other things, Nixon does not teach the
control blocks and keys as recited in claims 1, 6, and 11. In particular,
Appellants contend Nixon's smart process objects, which the Examiner finds
teach or suggest the recited control blocks, each have only one interface
element and the one interface element facilitates communication only from
the database or other source to the smart process objects. App. Br. 10-11;
Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue an exemplary control block "includes both an
input type user interface button (e.g., smoke mode button 74 to send
communications to a smoke control to manually tum on damper) and an
4
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
output user interface display ( e.g., NOR LED 81 [] that outputs green when
damper is in a normal off condition)." App. Br. 11. Thus, Appellants argue,
Nixon teaches smart process objects having user interface elements that
facilitate communication in only one direction. App. Br. 10-11; Reply
Br. 2. Appellants further assert Nixon's rendering definitions, which the
Examiner finds teach or suggest the recited keys, do not associate Nixon's
smart process objects with user interface objects to be included in the smart
process objects. App. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner finds Nixon's smart process objects teach the recited
control blocks and Nixon's graphic display elements (e.g., the color of the
graphic display element representing the device and display boxes) that
expose device parameters teach the user interface elements. Final Act. 7-8
(citing Nixon ,r,r 47--48, 91, 142-144, Fig. 4); see id. at 2 ("The Office
Action cites the process objects of Nixon as the 'control block' as recited in
claim 1. "). The Examiner also finds Nixon connects its smart process
objects with the field devices those smart objects represent via inputs and
outputs and these inputs and outputs facilitate bidirectional communication.
Ans. 3 (citing Nixon ,r,r 48, 94, Fig. 4). The Examiner further finds Nixon's
graphic properties, such as the color, of the display elements themselves and
boxes displayed next to the display elements both show device parameter
information, and therefore Nixon teaches at least two user interface objects
for each control block. Id. (citing Nixon ,r,r 66, 91, Fig. 4).
The Examiner finds Nixon's rendering definitions, which associate
graphic object elements and properties with the smart process object, teach
or suggest keys that provide "an association between a control block and a
user interface object to be included in the control block," as recited in claims
5
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
1, 6, and 11. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner explains that Nixon's rendering
definitions provide an association between the control block and the user
interface elements because the rendering definitions include "a property
reference tied to a usage property or parameter specifying a data source
received from the process control system" and "[t]he reference parameter
values are used to determine multiple graphical properties, e.g., shape and
color, of a display element representing the process object in the user
interface." Ans. 4 (citing Nixon ,r,r 143, 151-152).
Based on Nixon's disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that Nixon
teaches smart process objects that: (1) represent devices in a plant; (2) are
capable of both receiving input from and providing output to field devices
(i.e., physical devices in Nixon's process plant); and (3) include multiple
graphic display elements that expose parameters of the devices represented
by the smart process objects. See Nixon ,r,r 47--48, 66-67, 83, 91-92, 94,
113-118, 133. We also agree with and adopt the Examiner's analysis that
Nixon's rendering definitions teach or suggest the keys, as recited, because
they provide an association or relationship between the individual display
elements ( e.g., the graphical depiction of a device or display boxes, which
the Examiner finds teach the user interface objects) and the smart process
object.
However, independent claims 1, 6, and 11 recite control blocks
generated such that each control block "includes at least two user interface
objects ... that facilitate bidirectional communication with the inputs and
outputs of respective smoke control devices." Accordingly, the Examiner
must also demonstrate Nixon and Park teach or suggest smart process
objects having multiple user interface objects that facilitate "bidirectional
6
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
communication with the inputs and outputs of respective ... control
devices."
We construe "the inputs and outputs of respective smoke control
devices" as referring back to the inputs and outputs in the phrase "a building
having a plurality of smoke control devices for use in the smoke control
system having inputs and outputs." Accordingly, it is each control blocks'
user interface objects that facilitate the bidirectional communication, not just
the control block itself. Appellants' Specification describes buttons and
LEDs as elements of a control block that may facilitate bidirectional
communication with smoke control devices. E.g., Spec. 11. Although the
exemplary control block elements or interface objects are non-limiting when
construing the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation, they
inform our understanding of the type of interface objects that the claims
encompass. As can be seen from the Specification, the exemplary interface
objects provide graphical user interfaces, such as buttons to control smoke
control devices (e.g., a damper) or an LED to show the status of a smoke
control device. Spec. 11. These interface elements facilitate bidirectional
communication between the control block and the smoke control devices
because the buttons provide output to the smoke control devices, and the
LEDs provide input from the smoke control devices.
Contrary to the Examiner's conclusion, we agree with Appellants that
Nixon does not teach or suggest its smart process objects' user interfaces
facilitate bidirectional communication with respective devices. Rather,
Nixon only discloses user interface elements used to display information,
such as the status or other device parameter, obtained from that device.
Although Nixon clearly discloses that smart process objects communicate
7
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
with inputs and outputs of other smart process objects or field devices,
Nixon fails to show any indication that its user interface elements facilitate
communication from the smart process object representing a field device or
connector to any field device or connector. In other words, Nixon discloses
smart process objects having interface elements that display device
parameters, which teach or suggest user interface elements that facilitate
communication/ram a control device to a smart process object. However,
the Examiner has not pointed to anything in Nixon that teaches or suggests a
user interface element that facilitates communication from a smart process
object to a control device. Nor has the Examiner relied upon Park or prior
art smoke control systems for teaching this limitation or provided an
explanation why such a modification would have been obvious in light of
the cited teachings. Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Nixon teaches or suggests "two user interface objects for each
control block that facilitate bidirectional communication with the inputs and
outputs of respective ... control devices," as recited in independent claims
1, 6, and 11.
Accordingly, constrained by this record, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Nixon and Park for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20, which depend from claims 1, 6, and 11,
respectively and incorporate the limitations therein, stand with their
independent claims.
CLAIM21
The Examiner finds Nixon teaches every element recited in
independent claim 21, except that the claimed system is a "smoke control
8
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
system," the claimed devices are "smoke control devices," and the recited
keys associate a control block to a smoke zone in which a first control
device is located. See Final Act. 11-13. Of particular relevance to this
Appeal, the Examiner finds Park discloses smoke control devices and
assigning devices to building areas. Final Act. 13 ( citing Park ,r,r 3 8-3 9,
87); Ans. 6 (citing Park ,r,r 38, 80, 83-84; Nixon ,r,r 142-143). The
Examiner further explains that the rejection is based on a combination of
Nixon and Park; the Examiner relies on Park's disclosure of naming
definitions that tie device locations with how it is displayed in the GUI and
Nixon's disclosure of rendering definitions as teaching keys that associate
devices with control blocks. Ans. 6 ( citing Park ,r,r 80, 83-84; Nixon
,r,r 142-143). The Examiner further explains Park's disclosure of a smoke
detector teaches smoke control devices. Id. (citing Park ,r 38).
With respect to claim 21, Appellants quote two portions of the claim
relating to keys providing associations between a smoke zone, a control
block, and a user interface object and assert Park's paragraph 87 relates to an
alarm/event engine but does not "disclose or suggest a key that associates a
control block with a first smoke zone and a user interface object to be
included in the control block." App. Br. 13-14. Appellants further contend
neither Nixon nor Park "teaches or suggest or provides any technical hint to
use a key that associates a control block with a first smoke zone and a user
interface object to be included in the control block." Reply Br. 3.
As the Examiner explained on page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner
relies on Park only for teaching that the recited control device is a smoke
control device and, in combination with Nixon, a key associating the smoke
control device with the control block. Notably, it is the combination of
9
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
Nixon and Park, which both relate to graphical user interfaces to building
control devices, that the Examiner finds teaches the entirety of keys
associating control blocks to smoke control devices. Appellants' argument
that neither Nixon nor Park, alone, teach this limitation, is unpersuasive
because attacking the references individually when the rejection is based on
a combination does not demonstrate non-obviousness. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Nor is Appellants' contention that neither Nixon nor Park teaches or
suggests "any technical hint to use a key that associates a control block with
a first smoke zone and a user interface object to be included in the control
block" persuasive because the Examiner has provided a reason for
combining the references and the proposed combination results in the
disputed limitation. See Final Act. 13 ( explaining that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Nixon with Park's
smoke control devices to manage devices from other building systems). For
the above reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 21 as obvious in view of Nixon and Park.
CLAIM22
Appellants argue claim 22 is not obvious in view of the combination
of Nixon and Park for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent
claims 1 and 21. App. Br. 14. However, as discussed above, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the proposed combination teaches
the recited user interface elements and keys. Moreover, claim 21, which
depends from claim 22, does not recite that the user interface objects
facilitate bidirectional communication. Accordingly, Appellants' argument
10
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
that we found persuasive is not commensurate with the scope of claim 22.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 22 as obvious in view of Nixon and Park.
CLAIM23
Appellants argue claim 23 is not obvious in view of the combination
of Nixon, Park, and Piersanti because none of the cited references "suggest
any need to form and use a key in the particular string format" recited. App.
Br. 15. The Examiner finds Nixon, Park, and Piersanti teach or suggest keys
including a format "that specifies a zone, a control block, and a user
interface object" and "specifying a smoke zone." Final Act. 14--15 (citing
Nixon ,r,r 96-99, 143-145; Piersanti ,r,r 59---60, 92), 17; Ans. 8 (citing Nixon
,r,r 123, 167; Piersanti ,r,r 59---60). The Examiner further finds the particular
string format specified in claim 23 would have been an obvious syntax to
try. In other words, the Examiner finds Nixon teaches a particular syntax of
alphanumeric characters that identifies the information included in the
recited key and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to try the particularly recited format. Ans. 8. Given the Examiner's
findings that the specific elements represented in the recited key are taught
by the proposed combination, we agree with the Examiner that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found the particular format for
representing that information to be one obvious implementation of the
recited key. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 23 as obvious in view of Nixon, Park, and Piersanti.
CLAIM24
Appellants argue claim 24 is not obvious in view of the combination
of Nixon, Park, and Piersanti because Nixon does not disclose or suggest
11
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
that its smart process objects include a button, as recited in claim 24. App.
Br. 16; Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds Nixon teaches or suggests that the control block
includes a plurality of buttons, as recited in claim 24, because Nixon's
paragraphs 126 and 136 disclose "shape object may be a button." Final
Act. 18 (citing Nixon ,r,r 126, 136); Ans. 9. The Examiner also finds Nixon
teaches "the rendering definition for a graphic display element representing
a process object may include a set of shape objects." Ans. 9 (citing Nixon
,r 91 ). The Examiner further finds Piersanti teaches an LED user interface
object and provides a rationale for combining Piersanti's cited teachings
with Nixon. Final Act. 18 (citing Piersanti ,r,r 59---64); Ans. 9. Although the
Examiner finds Nixon, alone, teaches or suggests the majority of the
additionally recited subject matter in claim 24, the Examiner finds the
combination of Nixon and Piersanti teaches or suggests one of the recited
user interface objects being an LED. Final Act. 18; Ans. 9--10.
Nixon's paragraph 126 discloses "shape classes [that] form the
foundation of, or basic infrastructure, for process graphic displays and
composite shape classes." Nixon further discloses that the "shape objects
may be ... any one of a number of user interface shapes, such as buttons,
check boxes, sliders, etc." Nixon ,r 126. Piersanti's paragraphs 59 through
64 disclose various user interface objects including buttons and LEDs.
Based on the evidence and arguments presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 24 as obvious in view of
Nixon, Park, and Piersanti. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's
findings and conclusions because Nixon teaches rendering its smart process
12
Appeal2018-000732
Application 12/970,742
objects using definitions that include shape objects, which Nixon further
discloses may be various user interface objects, including buttons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13