Ex Parte Kropp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2014

12303106 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WOLFGANG KROPP and ANDREAS SCHIFF
____________

Appeal 2012-001330
Application 12/303,106
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 20–26 and 28–40. App. Br. 2, 4. Claims 1–19 and 27 are
canceled. Id. at 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-001330
Application 12/303,106

2
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 20–26 and 28–40 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Addressing Device ASA21-FBP
Technical Description, FieldBusPlug / Issue: 11.2003 (hereinafter
“FieldBusPlug”). Ans. 4–11.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Illustrative claim 20 is reproduced below.
20. A device, comprising:
at least two bus participants connected by a connection to at
least one of (a) a bus, (b) an electric cable, (c) a current bus, and
(d) air; and
an assignment device adapted to assign a data at least one of (a)
flowing in through and (b) exchanged through the connection to
the bus participants[,]
wherein the device includes a reversing logic adapted to shift
the device from a first mode to a second mode when a standard
address is at least one of (a) switched and (b) switched from one
of (i) a delivery address and (ii) an address 0 to another address
value.
ANALYSIS
Appellants address claims 20–26 and 28–40 collectively. App. Br.
4–6. We select claim 20 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
The claims are rejected as anticipated by FieldBusPlug. The cited
disclosure teaches a handheld addressing device (ASA21-FBP) that plugs
into slaves (AS-Interface FieldBusPlugs) of a master-slave system.
Appeal 2012-001330
Application 12/303,106

3
FieldBusPlug 6–7. The addressing device sets the address of each slave. Id.
FieldBusPlug explains:
The AS-Interface FieldBusPlugs have the default address 0A.
This is an invalid address. A valid address has to be set.
According to the extended AS-Interface standard, 62 different
addresses can be set. They are devided [sic] into the addresses
1A to 31A and 1B to 31B[.]
Id. at 6.
In finding that claim 20 reads on FieldBusPlug’s address setting, the
Examiner states:
Field[B]us[P]lug clearly teaches a device comprising an
address setting component as shown in Figure 5 that
automatically configures in addressing mode and has the
buttons to facilitate the change of address modes, page 6. The
terminology of address setting alone indicates the capability of
switching from one mode to another (emphasis added). The
additional infrared adaptor allows for the shifting of the device
from one mode to the other, page 7. The limitation as broadly
claimed is clearly evident as taught in the applied prior art.
Ans. 13.
Appellants respond that FieldBusPlug’s address setting does not teach
claim 20’s mode shifting. For example, Appellants argue:
Setting of an address as used in the context of FieldBusPlug
refers to specifying or fixing an address/new address (see, page
7 of FieldBusPlug); it does not refer to shifting of the device
from one mode to another, as in the context of the present
application, which has, for example, immediate ramifications
such as implementing two logical slaves instead of one (see,
e.g., page 3, lines 21 to 25).
Appeal 2012-001330
Application 12/303,106

4
Reply Br. 4. For the reasons below, the argument fails to show that claim
20’s mode shifting distinguishes over FieldBusPlug’s address setting.
Claim 20’s mode shifting is broadly recited as “reversing logic
adapted to shift the device from a first mode to a second mode when a
standard address is at least one of (a) switched and (b) switched from one of
(i) a delivery address and (ii) an address 0 to another address value.” The
above language requires shifting of the claimed device – which is, more
precisely, a system of two bus participants and an assignment device – from
one mode to another mode when a standard address is switched. One
meaning of “mode” is “a designated condition or status.” mode.
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mode (accessed: July 22, 2014); see
also Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, p. 1235 (2d ed.
2001) (same definition). Thus, the above language reads on shifting of a
system condition when switching a standard address. FieldBusPlug’s
master–slave system shifts from one composition of slaves to another,
particularly by adding slaves, when switching newly connected slaves from
a standard “0” address to new addresses. FieldBusPlug 6; see also supra 3,
FieldBusPlug block quote (“The AS–Interface FieldBusPlugs have the
default address 0A. This is an invalid address. A valid address has to be
set.”).
Of course, claim language must be given a “broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.” See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Appellants accordingly
present a Specification example of mode switching:
Appeal 2012-001330
Application 12/303,106

5
Among features of example embodiments of the present
invention in the device connected to a bus are that it
implements one logical slave, in particular, a bus participant, in
a first mode, and at least two logical slaves, in particular, bus
participants, in a second mode.
Spec. 3, ll. 21–25 (cited by Reply Br. 4; see also supra 3, Reply Brief block
quote). Contrary to supporting Appellants’ argument, the Specification’s
above example of mode switching indicates that FieldBusPlug’s shifting of
the master–slave system’s composition – likewise achieved by implementing
additional slaves – constitutes a switching of the system from one mode to
another. And, even assuming arguendo the Specification example of mode
switching can be distinguished from FieldBusPlug’s shifting of the master–
slave system’s composition via address setting, we could not read that
distinction from the example into claim 20’s mode switching. See In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO should only limit
the claim based on the specification . . . when those sources expressly
disclaim the broader definition.”) (citation omitted). Thorner v. Sony
Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We
do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine
words. . . . . To constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and
unmistakable disclaimer.”).
Furthermore, despite contending FieldBusPlug does not teach claim
20’s mode switching, Appellants do not present a required meaning of
“mode” for consideration. Rather, Appellants present the Specification’s
above example of mode switching without explaining the pertinence. And,
Appellants cursorily assert that FieldBusPlug’s address setting does not
constitute mode switching. To prevail, Appellants must instead present a
Appeal 2012-001330
Application 12/303,106

6
required feature of claim 20’s mode switching that distinguishes over
FieldBusPlug’s cited teachings. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (affirming in part because appellant “merely argued that the
claims differed from [the prior art without proffering] a serious explanation
of this difference.”); In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant[.]”).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated an error
in the rejection of representative claim 20 and claims 21–26 and 28–40
grouped therewith. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20–26 and 28–40 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED
llw