Ex Parte Erhardt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13817901 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 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.
13/817,901 04/22/2013 Eduard Erhardt 2010P16367WOUS 8189
22116 7590 04/28/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
PATEL, JIGNESHKUMAR C
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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 EDUARD ERHARDT and WILHELM GRIESBAUM
Appeal 2017-000079
Application 13/817,901
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BETH Z. SHAW, and
ADAM PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 9—16, which are the only claims currently pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is for redundantly controlling processes of an
automation system. Spec. 2:1.
Claim 9, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
9. A method for redundantly controlling processes of an
automation system which comprises at least two control units, wherein each
control unit performs a plurality of task blocks one after another, wherein for
execution of the task blocks, output data which can be transmitted are stored
in a plurality of work regions which exceeds by one the number of task
Appeal 2017-000079
Application 13/817,901
blocks, the respective work regions each containing the output data for each
of the task blocks, wherein the one additional work region, which is the
system work region, contains the output data which can currently be
transmitted and for execution of a task block is used in each of the control
units, the method comprising:
on starting the task block to be executed, transferring the current
content of the system work region to the work region,
at the end of the task block that has been carried out, comparing the
output data of the work regions of the at least two control units updated with
results from the executed task block with one another,
transferring the updated content of said work regions to the system
work regions, and
if the content of the work regions for the task block in the control
units is identical, then starting the next task block.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Galpin (US 7,043,728 Bl; May 9, 2006)
and Kleyer et al. (US 2007/0128895 Al; June 7, 2007). Final Act. 2-5.
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Galpin, Kleyer, and Southgate et al. (US
2006/0247796 Al; Nov. 2, 2006). Final Act. 5-7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. See Final Act 2—7; Ans. 2—6.
Appellants argue that Kleyer does not teach the claimed system work
region because it merely discloses two devices sharing a memory unit 9.
2
Appeal 2017-000079
Application 13/817,901
App Br. 7—8. Appellants argue that Kleyer’s paragraph 39 does not identify
“a number of task blocks in each device 3a, 3b.” App. Br. 8. However, as
the Examiner finds, the claim does not require identifying a number of task
blocks. Ans. 5. Appellants also argue that Kleyer does not “teach or suggest
that sharing memory is similar to or functions as a system work region as
claimed.” App. Br. 5. However, we find the Examiner’s mapping of
Kleyer’s memory unit 9 to the “system work region” to be entirely
reasonable. Ans. 3 (citing Kleyer Fig. 1,139). Appellants provide
insufficient evidence that the claims limit “system work region,” in a way
that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by
Kleyer’s teachings. Ans. 2—5. “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest
reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Appellants also argue that because Galpin does not teach a plurality of
work regions which exceed a plurality of task blocks by one (App. Br.
8—10), then Galpin cannot teach transferring the current content of a system
work region to the work region having the task block to be executed. Reply
Br. 5—7. However, the Examiner rejects claim 9 over the combined
teachings of Galpin and Kleyer, and what the combined teachings would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner relies on the combination
of Kleyer, which teaches the system work region as claimed, and Galpin, to
reject claim 9.
3
Appeal 2017-000079
Application 13/817,901
We agree with the Examiner’s findings, and are therefore not
persuaded by Appellants’ conclusory statements (see Reply Br. 2—7) that
Galpin fails to teach “on starting the task to be executed, transferring the
current content of the system work region to the work region.”1 As
discussed above, Kleyer teaches the system work region. We agree that the
combination of Kleyer and Galpin teaches this element because Galpin
describes that an execution state of each channel is recorded in a data
structure within shared memory. See Ans. 3 (citing Galpin, 7:38-41). In the
absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to the contrary,
the Examiner’s findings are reasonable and we find no reversible error.
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability above (see Br. 11—12), the remaining
pending claims fall for the same reasons as claim 9. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 9—16 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
1 In the event of any further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to
reevaluate the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 1112.
4