Ex Parte Heller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13059700 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
13/059,700 01/06/2012 Rainer Heller 2009P06386WOUS 2418
22116 7590 03/31/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
LE, MICHAEL
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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 RAINER HELLER, VENKATA PRASAD MUKKA,
OSWIN NOETZELMANN, PRITHVI RAJU,
DIRK SCHAUMBURG, and EDWARD SLAVIN
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—21. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a providing a
proxy step in a model of an automation system for programming a
programmable logic controller (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for altering a modeling of an automation
system via a modeling tool, comprising:
determining at least one valid position in an electrical
sequence flow of the automation system in which a proxy
step could be inserted into the electrical sequence flow;
displaying the electrical sequence flow pertaining to a
plurality of resources, the electrical sequence flow
comprising:
a plurality of electrical sequence elements
including a first electrical step and an electrical
transition, and
an icon for each of the determined at least one
valid position, identifying, from the display, an
icon to be replaced by a new proxy step;
replacing the identified icon with the new proxy
step;
adding electrical transitions effective for the new proxy
step to be parallel to the first electrical step; and
displaying the electrical sequence flow after the replacing
the icon and the adding electrical transitions,
wherein the displaying the electrical sequence flow is on
an electronic display device.
2
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sakamoto US 5,793,947 Aug. 11, 1998
Brooks US 2005/0278670 A1 Dec. 15,2005
Siemens, SIMATIC SFC for SIMATIC S7 Manual (2006) (“Siemens”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 10, 11, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brooks (Final Act. 2—22).
Claims 2—9 and 16—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brooks and Sakamoto (Final Act. 22—38).
Claims 12—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brooks and Siemens (Ans. 38—41).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 10, 11, 15, and21
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1, 10, 15, and
21, is not unpatentable over Brooks (Reply Br. 2—5; App. Br. 6—14).1 The
issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Does Brooks teach, suggest “determining at least one valid
position in an electrical sequence flow of the automation system in which a
1 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action and
Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellants have been considered in this Decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
proxy step could be inserted into the electrical sequence flow,” as recited in
claim 1?
Issue 2: Does Brooks teach, suggest “displaying the electrical
sequence flow pertaining to a plurality of resources, the electrical sequence
flow comprising: a plurality of electrical sequence elements including a first
electrical step and an electrical transition, and an icon for each of the
determined at least one valid position,” as recited in claim 1?
Issue 3: Does Brooks teach, suggest “identifying, from the display, an
icon to be replaced by a new proxy step; replacing the identified icon with
the new proxy step,” as recited in claim 1?
Issue 4: Does Brooks teach or suggest “adding electrical transitions
effective for the new proxy step to be parallel to the first electrical step,” as
recited in claim 1?
Issue 5: Does Brooks teach or suggest “wherein the proxy step is not
related to a mechanical step,” as recited in claim 10?
Issue 6: Does Brooks teach or suggest “the electrical sequence flow
comprising a plurality of electrical sequence elements and an icon for each
valid position in which a proxy step could be inserted into the electrical
sequence flow, each of the plurality of electrical sequence elements is an
electrical step or an electrical transition,” as recited in claim 21?
Issue 7: Does Brooks teach, suggest “an icon to be replaced by a new
proxy step is identified by a user via a user interface; the identified icon is
replaced with the new proxy step,” as recited in claim 21?
4
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—45); and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 49-60).
With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Brooks teaches
“determining at least one valid position in an electrical sequence flow of the
automation system in which a proxy step could be inserted into the electrical
sequence flow,” as recited in claim 1 (Reply Br. 2—3; App. Br. 6—9).
Specifically, Appellants argue positions in Brooks teach physical positions
rather than determined valid positions in an electrical sequence flow (App.
Br. 6—8 (citing Brooks 1 1093); Reply Br. 2). Appellants further assert the
proxy step is described in the Specification as an electrical step not related to
a mechanical step (Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. 1136)). According to
Appellants, a proxy step cannot be inserted into a physical position in an
electrical sequence flow in Brooks because a proxy step cannot be inserted
into a physical position (App. Br. 8—9 (citing Brooks 1 83); Reply Br. 3).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Brooks teaches
generating templates of electrical schematics showing the electrical flow
between components (Ans. 52—53; Brooks H 83, 85). The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Figure 35 of Brooks teaches an exemplary template (Ans. 54;
Brooks H 157, 1093). We additionally agree Brooks teaches selected
5
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
operational positions 3518 and 3519 in an electrical schematic as shown in
Figure 35 (Ans. 52—53 (citing Brooks 1 1093, Fig. 35)). As set forth by the
Examiner, the selected operational positions 3518 and 3519 are points at
electrical steps in an electrical sequence flow (Ans. 52—53). Although we
agree with Appellants these “operational positions” may also refer to
“physical locations” within the representation (App. Br. 6—7), the
operational positions also represent a component with specific operating
characteristics within the electrical sequence flow (Brooks 11081). Thus,
these operational positions teach the electrical steps in an electrical sequence
flow. Appellants’ argument that the position is not a “determined position”
is not persuasive as claim 1 does not recite who or what is doing the
determining or the specifics of how the determination is made. We further
agree with the Examiner Brooks teaches a proxy step (“an electrical step not
related to a mechanical step” (Spec. 1136)) may be inserted into an event
section or segment of the electrical schematic at a determined valid position
in the template (Ans. 53 (citing Brooks | 83)). Appellants’ arguments that
Brooks fails to show an electrical step not related to a mechanical step are
unpersuasive as neither the claim nor the Specification defines the degree or
type of relationship. Furthermore, Brooks teaches “[i]n at least some
embodiments a set of templates are provided that associate mechanical
components and specific relationships to electrical components” and
identifying relationships and expected relationships, if a relationship exists,
between mechanical components and electrical components (Brooks | 83).
Therefore, we are unpersuaded Brooks fails to teach, suggest inserting a
proxy step into the electrical sequence flow. Therefore, Appellants have not
persuaded us Brooks fails to teach “determining at least one valid position in
6
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
an electrical sequence flow of the automation system in which a proxy step
could be inserted into the electrical sequence flow,” as recited in claim 1.
Issue 2
Appellants additionally contend the Examiner erred in finding Brooks
teaches “displaying the electrical sequence flow pertaining to a plurality of
resources, the electrical sequence flow comprising: a plurality of electrical
sequence elements including a first electrical step and an electrical
transition, and an icon for each of the determined at least one valid position,”
as recited in claim 1 (Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 9—10). Specifically, Appellants
argue the icon in Brooks corresponds to an electrical icon, not to a position
(App. Br. 9-10 (citing Brooks 1250)). Appellants contend the recited icon
is displayed at a position in the electrical sequence flow (Reply Br. 3).
Appellants further assert the icon in Brooks would have to correspond to the
operating position 3518 or 3519 in Brooks to be consistent with the
Examiner’s rejection (App. Br. 10; Brooks 1 1093, Fig. 35).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Brooks
teaches icons corresponding to electrical components usable to control
components, at positions in electrical schematics (Ans. 54—55 (citing Brooks
1190, 250)). Thus, as set forth by the Examiner, icons in Brooks represent
determined valid positions in the electrical sequence flow (Ans. 55). It
follows, contrary to Appellants’ argument, the cited Brooks’ disclosure
teaches the icons represent positions, as recited in claim 1.
7
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
Issue 3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Brooks teaches
“identifying, from the display, an icon to be replaced by a new proxy step;
replacing the identified icon with the new proxy step,” as recited in claim 1
(Reply Br. 3—\\ App. Br. 10-11). In particular, Appellants argue Brooks
teaches mechanical flow rather than electrical sequence flow (App. Br. 10
(citing Brooks 1246)). Appellants further argue Brooks teaches icons being
added or deleted, but not replaced (App. Br. 10 (citing Brooks 1246); Reply
Br. 4).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds that Brooks teaches icons
in an electrical schematic marked in a visually distinguishing manner (Ans.
55 (citing Brooks 1248)). The Examiner further finds the icons may be
added or deleted (Ans. 55 (citing Brooks 1248)). We agree with the
Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found Brooks to teach
or suggest deleting icons followed by subsequent adding reused icons is
replacing icons with a proxy step (Ans. 55 (citing Brooks 1248)).
Appellants assert the reused icon is not a proxy step (Reply Br. 4);
however, we determine Brooks teaches the reused electrical icon at
replacement does not support an existing, undeleted mechanical icon (see
Brooks 1248). We find this argument unpersuasive. Rather, because the
reused icon is not related to a mechanical icon at replacement, we find the
reused icon teaches the recited proxy step.
Issue 4
Appellants next contend the Examiner erred in finding Brooks teaches
“adding electrical transitions effective for the new proxy step to be parallel
8
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
to the first electrical step,” as recited in claim 1 (Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 11—
12). Specifically, Appellants assert Brooks teaches state transitions during
operation, rather than modeling (App. Br. 11 (citing Brooks 1 858)).
Appellants further argue Brooks does not specify where the parallel
operation may occur (App. Br. 11—12 (citing Brooks 139)). Appellants
contend the teachings of transitions and parallel operation in Brooks are
unrelated (Reply Br. 4).
We are not persuaded. Initially we note as a matter of claim
construction, the claim does not require the system not to be in operation.
The Examiner finds Brooks teaches multiple relays connected in parallel
rungs to achieve parallel operation and parallel operations on switches that
may be arranged to be parallel with contacts (Ans. 56 (citing Brooks 1 621);
Final Act. 7—8; Brooks H 39, 621; see also Brooks 1617 (discussing
creation of parallel rungs or branches)). Thus, Brooks teaches parallel
operation of switches with contacts related to diagnostics (see Brooks H
620-621) like those conducted by sensors and actuators that transition
between states (see Brooks 1 858).
Issue 5
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Brooks teaches or
suggests “wherein the proxy step is not related to a mechanical step,” as
recited in claim 10 (App. Br. 12—13). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
motivation to combine is conclusory (App. Br. 12—13). Appellants further
assert that the Examiner’s motivation of conveying the model more
intuitively is not relevant to a proxy step not having a mechanical step (App.
Br. 13).
9
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
We are not persuaded. As set forth above, Appellants’ Specification
does not explicitly define what is meant by “not related to a mechanical
step.” Appellants argue that “a proxy step does not have a corresponding
action being performed by a resource,” however, the Examiner finds Brooks
teaches mechanical and electrical schematics (Ans. 57 (citing Brooks, Fig.
122)). As discussed above, Brooks teaches that, at the time of replacement,
when the reused icon is added to the electrical schematic, the reused icon
does not support a mechanical icon because it has been deleted (Brooks
1248, Fig. 122). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the reused icon not
supporting an existing, undeleted mechanical icon teaches the recited proxy
step not related to a mechanical step (Ans. 57 (citing Brooks, Fig. 122)).
Issue 6
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Brooks renders
obvious “the electrical sequence flow comprising a plurality of electrical
sequence elements and an icon for each valid position in which a proxy step
could be inserted into the electrical sequence flow, each of the plurality of
electrical sequence elements is an electrical step or an electrical transition,”
as recited in claim 21 (App. Br. 14 (emphasis omitted)). In particular,
Appellants argue the recited icon represents a position in the electrical
sequence flow (App. Br. 14). Appellants further assert that the icon in
Brooks refers to an electrical component, not a position (App. Br. 14).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds Brooks teaches that the
icons correspond to positions in an electrical template (Ans. 58 (citing
Brooks 190)). The Examiner further finds Brooks teaches these positions as
the selected positions 3518 and 3519 (Ans. 58; Brooks 1 1093); therefore,
10
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
Brooks teaches “an icon for each valid position in which a proxy step could
be inserted,” as recited in claim 21. We agree with the Examiner, as
discussed above that Brooks teaches the relationships among the electrical
icons are indicated by their locations in the schematic (see Brooks 1250)
and, therefore, each of the plurality of electrical sequence elements is an
electrical step or an electrical transition. Thus, the electrical sequence flow
of Brooks comprises a plurality of electrical sequence elements and an icon
for each valid position, as recited.
Issue 7
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Brooks teaches or
suggests “an icon to be replaced by a new proxy step is identified by a user
via a user interface; the identified icon is replaced with the new proxy step,”
as recited in claim 21 (App. Br. 13—14). Appellants assert Brooks teaches
that the icon is added or deleted, but not replaced (App. Br. 14). Appellants
additionally argue that Brooks does not teach that the user identifies the icon
to be replaced (App. Br. 14 (citing Brooks 1247)).
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, we agree with the
Examiner that deleting icons followed by subsequent adding reused icons
teaches replacing icons with a proxy step (Ans. 55, 58 (citing Brooks 1
248)). The Examiner further finds that Brooks teaches a user interface (Ans.
59 (citing Brooks 1237)). Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner’s
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the user
identify the icon to be replaced with the user interface because the user may
access schematics and select any icon (Ans. 59; see Brooks H 251, 252, Fig.
122), is in error. Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us Brooks fails
11
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
to teach or suggest “an icon to be replaced by a new proxy step is identified
by a user via a user interface; the identified icon is replaced with the new
proxy step,” as recited in claim 21.
Summary
In light of the foregoing findings and conclusions, Appellants have
not persuaded us Brooks fails to teach or suggest the limitations as recited in
claims 1,10, and 21 and claims 11 and 15, not separately argued (App. Br.
13). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10, 11, 15, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Brooks.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2—9, 12—14, and 16—20
Appellants did not separately argue dependent claims 2—9, 12—14, and
16—20. For the reasons set forth above, these claims fall with their
respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
2—9 and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Brooks and
Sakamoto and the rejection of claims of 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Brooks and Siemens.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, 11, 15, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brooks is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—9 and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brooks and Sakamoto is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brooks and Siemens is affirmed.
12
Appeal 2016-000174
Application 13/059,700
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
13