Ex Parte Ford et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13071020 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

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.
13/071,020 03/24/2011 Kenneth M. Ford 21088-27260 3198
38642 7590 10/31/2016
WTT FY HORTON
EXAMINER
215 SOUTH MONROE STREET JARRETT, RYAN A
2ND FLOOR
TALLAHASSEE, EL 32301 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH M. FORD and NIRANJAN SURI
Appeal 2014-009842
Application 13/071,020
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—20, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as the Florida Institute for Human
and Machine Cognition. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-009842
Application 13/071,020
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for coordinating the actions of a plurality of
components in a multicomponent system, comprising:
a. providing a plurality of components, wherein each of
said plurality of components includes a computing device;
b. providing a first set of software code needed to run a
coordinating process on each of said computing devices;
c. wherein said coordinating process controls operations
needed to coordinate the activities of all components in said
multi-component system;
d. cycling said coordinating process through each of said
components in said multi-component system by transferring the
execution state of said coordinating process through each of said
components, with said coordinating process running on each of
said components for a residency time;
e. wherein each of said components collects data that is
used by said coordinating process;
f. wherein said coordinating process issues commands to
each of said components;
g. wherein data collected by a particular component is only
transferred to said coordinating process when said coordinating
process is running on said particular component; and
h. wherein a command issued by said coordinating process
to a particular component is only transferred to said particular
component when said coordinating process is running on said
particular component.
Rejections
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (US 2005/0216107 Al, published Sept.
29, 2005), Jordan et al. (US 2009/0271006 Al, published Oct. 29, 2009),
2
Appeal 2014-009842
Application 13/071,020
and Forth et al. (US 2002/0120723 Al, published Aug. 29, 2002). Final
Act. 3-7.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Donnell, Jordan, Forth, and Mosier et al. (US
2008/0071853 Al, published Mar. 20, 2008). Final Act. 7-9.
3. Claims 3,5, and 7—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over O’Donnell, Jordan, Forth, and Miller et al. (US
6,625,639 Bl, issued Sept. 23, 2003). Final Act. 9-19.
4. Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Donnell, Jordan, Forth, and Matena et al. (US
2005/0005200 Al, published Jan. 6, 2005). Final Act. 19-22.
5. Claims 11, 12, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Donnell, Miller, and Mosier. Final Act.
22-30.
6. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Donnell, Miller, Mosier, and Matena. Final Act. 30-
31.
7. Claims 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Donnell, Jordan, Mosier, and Miller. Final Act. 31—39.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 15—26; Reply Br. 1—23). We concur with Appellants’
argument (App. Br. 22—23) that the Examiner has not shown the
combination of O’Donnell, Jordan, and Forth teaches “wherein data
collected by a particular component is only transferred to said coordinating
3
Appeal 2014-009842
Application 13/071,020
process when said coordinating process is running on said particular
component” (“limitation (g)”), as recited in claim 1. We also agree with
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 25—26) that the combination of O’Donnell,
Miller, and Mosier does not disclose the identical limitation (g) in claim 11.
In view of limitations (d), (e), and (g), we interpret claim 1 to at least
require (1) each component to run the coordinating process while no other
component runs the coordinating process, (2) each component to collect data
and transfer it to the coordinating process, (3) each component is precluded
from transferring data to the coordinating process when the coordinating
process is not running on that component, and (4) the data collected by each
component must be transferred to the coordinating process when the
coordinating process is running on that component. With respect to
limitation (g), the Examiner finds Jordan “teaches incrementally updating
the internal states of function blocks and the synchronizing in the cyclical
processing or execution sequence,” and Forth “teaches the well-known
technique of updating only modifications to the software configuration
currently operating in the corresponding component.” Ans. 74; see also
Final Act. 6 (citing Forth || 14—19, 88—100, 114—118; Jordan || 9—13, SO­
SO). The Examiner also finds Forth “describes how to transfer data
configurations so that update include only the modifications to the software
configuration currently operating in the corresponding among intelligent
electronic devices that may require unique software configurations, or
multiple devices may include the same software configuration.” Ans. 74.
We agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 22—23; Reply Br. 5—11) that
the cited portions of Jordan and Forth do not teach that “data collected by a
particular component is only transferred to said coordinating process when
4
Appeal 2014-009842
Application 13/071,020
said coordinating process is running on said particular component,” as
recited in claim 1. Forth teaches updating a current software configuration
on a device, but the cited portions do not teach transferring data collected by
the device to a process only when the process is running. See, e.g., Forth
188, Abstract. In Jordan, two controllers run the same process
synchronously, and receive the same data from field devices. See Final Act.
5 (citing Jordan H 11—16, 28—39). If Jordan’s field devices are considered
the claimed “components,” as argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 9), then we
agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 11) that the coordinating process is not
running on the components, as required by the claim. Even if the controllers
are considered the “components,” however, the same data is sent to both
processes running on the controllers, so the data is always being sent to the
coordinating process. Accordingly, the cited portions of Jordan also do not
teach limitation (g).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Donnell, Jordan, and
Forth.2 Because the rejections of claims 2—10 rely on the Examiner’s
finding that the combination of O’Donnell, Jordan, and Forth teaches
limitation (g) of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2—
10.
Claim 11 recites limitation (g) that is identical to claim 1. The
Examiner finds Mosier teaches limitation (g). Final Act. 25—26 (citing
Mosier || 3—6, 40-58, 77—94, and 33—35). Appellants argue Mosier teaches
transferring data from one component to another without restriction. App.
2 We need not reach additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments as to
claim 1.
5
Appeal 2014-009842
Application 13/071,020
Br. 25. The Examiner finds that Mosier teaches a distributed storage
register, and each node communicates state changes to manage the global,
distributed list of states. Ans. 93. We agree with Appellants that the cited
portions of Mosier do not show that “data collected by a particular
component is only transferred to said coordinating process when said
coordinating process is running on said particular component,” as recited in
claim 11.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Donnell, Miller, and
Mosier.3 Because the rejections of claims 12—20 rely on the Examiner’s
finding that the combination of O’Donnell, Miller, and Mosier teaches
limitation (g) of claim 11, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 12—
20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
REVERSED
3 We need not reach additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments as to
claim 11.
6