Ex Parte Reidt

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

14819458 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/819,458 08/06/2015
95683 7590 03/28/2019
Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Georg Reidt
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
814901 2073
EXAMINER
WONG,TITUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORG REIDT
Appeal2018-007170
Application 14/819 ,45 8
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EV ANS, and NORMAN H.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-007170
Application 14/819 ,45 8
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for controlling bus-networked devices in a
system comprising a gateway, an open field bus electrically connected
to the gateway, and a pluggable connection cable electrically
connecting the gateway to a plurality of bus subscribers, the method
compnsmg:
starting, by the gateway, a configuration mode to control a bus
subscriber and to generate a new target configuration including the
bus subscriber,
wherein, according to an initial target configuration, the bus
subscriber is not expected by the gateway.
Rejections
Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as being
anticipated by Sexton (US 5,978,593; issued Nov. 2, 1999), in view of Jones
(US 2002/0042857 Al; published Apr. 11, 2002).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being anticipated by
Sexton, in view of Jones, further in view of Galipeau (US 6,249,913 B 1;
issued June 19, 2001).
2
Appeal2018-007170
Application 14/819 ,45 8
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contention the Examiner erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's
response to independent claims 1 and 11 that Appellant has argued. App.
Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each
argument presented by the Appellant on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. We
have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner's findings and
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Final Action and
Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3-9; Ans. 3--4.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that "Sexton does not disclose
or suggest any way of adding or removing bus subscribers" but admits
"Sexton allows to change communication mappings among bus connected
I/0 modules." Reply Br. 2, (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds, and we agree "changing the I/0 mapping
[between various bus devices] is changing the target configuration" Ans.
3--4.
Appellant also contends that "in Sexton all of the 1/0 modules are
known and expected at particular addresses at all times." (Reply Br. 2-3).
However, Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
the claim language because Appellant's claim 1 does not preclude Sexton's
known I/0 modules.
3
Appeal2018-007170
Application 14/819 ,45 8
We have considered the rest of Appellant's arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 3) but find them unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner's
responses.
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the proper combinability
of the prior art references as suggested by the Examiner. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of independent claims 1 and
11, and dependent claims not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4