Ex Parte Meyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

11738726 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

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.
11/738,726 04/23/2007 Mikael Meyer 9642-2 8046
20792 7590 11/26/2014
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2014 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 MIKAEL MEYER, JOHAN ANDERSSON
and THOMAS PAULY
____________

Appeal 2012-005913
Application 11/738,726
1

Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–6, 8–26, and 28–42. Claims 7 and 27 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
Appellants indicate the real party in interest is ABB AB, Vasteras, Sweden.
App. Br. 1.

Appeal 2012-005913
Application 11/738,726

2
Invention
The claimed invention is directed to updating objects in a
computerized object-based system for process and manufacturing control.
Abstract.

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 reads as follows with key limitations emphasized:
1. A method of updating objects in an object-based
computerized system for controlling a process or part of a
process, which process is any of an electrical power generation
and supply process, a water purification and distribution
process, an oil and gas production and distribution process, a
petrochemical process, a chemical process, a pharmaceutical
process, a food process, a pulp and paper production process, a
production and manufacturing process and/or a physical
process, comprising:
providing a related environment within the system
comprising operative versions of computer objects, where at
least some of the objects are used for control of real world
objects in the process, wherein the real world objects include
entities that influence the process;
providing at least one engineering environment within
the system, the engineering environment being isolated from
the related environment;
receiving a request from a system-modifying user in a
group of system-modifying users associated with the at least
one engineering environment, to import selected versions of at
least some objects to the at least one engineering environment
from the related environment;
importing from the related environment where at least
some of the objects are used for control of real world objects,
the selected versions to the at least one engineering
environment without disturbing the process controlled by ones
of the real world objects;
Appeal 2012-005913
Application 11/738,726

3
allowing the group to modify the imported objects for
creating modified versions of these objects and barring other
users from modifying the imported objects;
receiving a request from a system-modifying user of the
group to export objects of the at least one engineering
environment to the related environment after modification of
the imported objects is finished; and
exporting objects to the related environment responsive
to the request, wherein the exporting the objects includes
replacing current versions of objects in the related environment
with modified versions from the at least one engineering
environment, for making the modified versions the current
versions, wherein the objects are provided in collections, where
a collection includes objects that have dependencies of each
other.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims.
Van Huben US 6,088,693 July 11, 2000

Gordon US 6,711,593 B1 Mar. 23, 2004

Muttik US 7,024,432 B2 Apr. 4, 2006

Rejections
Claims 1–6, 8–26, and 28–42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Huben, Gordon, and Muttik.

ISSUES
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claims 1, 21, 41,
and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Huben,
Gordon, and Muttik because the combination does not teach or suggest
Appeal 2012-005913
Application 11/738,726

4
importing from a related environment where at least some of the objects are
used for control of real world objects, selected versions to at least one
engineering environment without disturbing the process controlled by ones
of the real world objects?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting dependent claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Huben, Gordon, and Muttik
because the combination does not teach or suggest wherein the related
environment from which versions of objects are imported is a production
environment and imported versions of objects are the operative versions of
objects of the production environment?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Gordon discloses “importing from the related
environment where at least some of the objects are used for control of real
world objects, the selected versions to the at least one engineering
environment without disturbing the process controlled by ones of the real
world objects.” Ans. 10. The Examiner finds Gordon teaches live update
activities of an automated remote database configuration method that
enables efficient database alteration activities and facilitates minimization of
disruptions. Ans. 10, 11 (citing Gordon col. 4, ll. 53–56). In particular, the
Examiner finds Gordon discloses a remote site update management
component (e.g., LiveUpdateManager), and a program running in the
background at the remote site, which oversees the process of implementing
remote updates. Ans. 11; Gordon, Fig. 5; col. 7, l. 66 – col. 8, l. 67.
Because the remote update program is running in the background, the
Examiner explains, there is no direct effect on the main program operating
Appeal 2012-005913
Application 11/738,726

5
the manufacturing environment. Ans. 11. Therefore, the Examiner
concludes, it is inherent that there will be no interruption when updating. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the cited references
do not disclose or suggest “importing from the related environment where at
least some of the objects are used for control of real world objects, the
selected versions to the at least one engineering environment without
disturbing the process controlled by ones of the real world objects,” as
recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that although Gordon
describes updating manufacturing databases in a manner that reduces
disturbances, Gordon falls short of eliminating disturbances altogether. Id.
Appellants argue Gordon’s descriptions of minimizing disruptions,
reducing downtime, suspending transactions, facilitating production
resumption, and scheduling updates at the most convenient time show that
Gordon fails to teach or suggest importing from a related environment
without disturbing the process. App. Br. 9.–10. Resuming production,
Appellants argue, implies that production has been disrupted. Reply Br. 5.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments, but they are not
persuasive of Examiner error. The particular claim language at issue here,
“without disturbing the process controlled by ones of the real world objects”
limits the importing step of the claims at issue. Claim 1 as written requires
the step of importing selected versions of some of the objects used for
control from the related environment to the engineering environment occur
without disturbing the process. Appellants erroneously apply the limitation
without disturbing the process to the entire claimed method of updating
objects, not just the importing step. Reply Br. 4, 5.
Appeal 2012-005913
Application 11/738,726

6
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Gordon discloses a remote site
update management program running in the background at the remote site
overseeing the process of implementing remote updates. Ans. 32, 33;
Gordon col. 8, ll. 9–21. Because the remote update program is running in
the background, it is reasonable to conclude the main program operating the
manufacturing environment would not be disturbed during the importation
step of the update process. Gordon discloses, for example, copying of
control details before any changes are made to the production program.
Gordon col. 5, ll. 19–22; See also, col. 7, ll. 10–17.
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent
claim 3 because it would not have been obvious to modify the design
environment of Van Huben to provide a production environment, as such a
modification would appear to render Van Huben’s design environment
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of designing a model, and would
further appear to change the principle of operating as a design environment.
App. Br. 11, 12. We disagree. One cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Huben,
Gordon, and Muttik teaches “the related environment from which versions
of objects are imported is a production environment and imported versions
of objects are the operative versions of objects of the production
environment.” Ans. 37. In particular, Gordon discloses comparing the
production database to the update database, copying the production database
to a rollback database, and determining the changes to be made to the
production database. Ans. 37, 38 (citing Gordon col. 8, ll. 42–47).
Appeal 2012-005913
Application 11/738,726

7

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we conclude the Examiner did not err in
finding the combination of Van Huben, Gordon, and Muttik teaches or
suggests importing from a related environment where at least some of the
objects are used for control of real world objects, selected versions to at least
one engineering environment without disturbing the process controlled by
ones of the real world objects.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 21, 41,
and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) along with dependent claims 2, 4–6, 8–20,
22–26, and 28–40 which were not argued separately.
We also conclude the Examiner did not err in finding the combination
of Van Huben, Gordon, and Muttik teaches or suggests wherein the related
environment from which versions of objects are imported is a production
environment and imported versions of objects are the operative versions of
objects of the production environment recited in claim 3.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3.

Appeal 2012-005913
Application 11/738,726

8
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8–26, and 28–42.
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

ELD