09672935 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 13, 2009)

Ex Parte Retlich

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 13, 2009

09672935 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte KEVIN A. RETLICH ____________________ Appeal 2009-0011531 Application 09/672,935 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Decided: October 14, 2009 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Filed September 28, 2000. The real party in interest is Rockwell Technologies, LLC. Appeal 2009-001153 Application 09/672,935 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1 through 28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s Invention Appellant invented a method and system for monitoring components in an industrial automation system to dynamically build a real-time view of the monitored components in a variety of languages. (Spec. 1, ll. 6-10.) As shown in Figure 1, a monitoring station (18) executes a software that polls the components (32) of the system to acquire their status and parameters in real-time via a data network (14). As shown in Figures 5 and 8, the identity information obtained from the components (32) is mapped against component descriptive data (98) and a plurality of fields in a database (96) to thereby build the user viewable representations (138) in a various languages. (Spec. 14, ll. 7-15.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. A control and monitoring system including a plurality of control and monitoring components coupled to a monitoring station via a data network the system comprising: Appeal 2009-001153 Application 09/672,935 3 a database including component data descriptive of the components and a plurality of language fields including textual labels for component data presentations translated into a plurality of languages; and a plurality of monitoring screens viewable on the monitoring station and including representations of component designations and component status parameters based upon monitored data collected by the monitoring station via the data network from the components in which identifying component data is stored, the screens including textual labels for the representations; wherein the monitoring station is configured to build a view of the components in real-time based upon the identifying component data and to access textual labels in a desired language from the database for display in the monitoring screens based upon the identifying component data collected from the components. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Bapat 4,916,610 Apr. 10, 1990 Tkacs 5,526,268 Jun. 11, 1996 Bargh 6,212,491 Apr. 3, 2001 Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) Appeal 2009-001153 Application 09/672,935 4 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: 1. Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Tkacs, Bapat and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). 2. Claim 8 stands rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Tkacs, Bapat, AAPA, and Bargh. 3. Claims 9 through 20 and 22 through 28 stand rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Tkacs and AAPA. 4. Claim 21 stands rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Tkacs, AAPA, and Bargh. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends that the combination of Tkacs, Bapat and AAPA does not teach a monitoring station that collects component identifying data stored within the components themselves to thereby build a view of the components in real-time, as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 8-11, Reply Br. 2-7.) According to Appellant, while Tkacs discloses a monitoring apparatus, it does not collect identifying data from the monitored components in which the data is stored. (App. Br. 10.) Further, Appellant argues that while AAPA discloses that component parameters in an industrial process are sensed, such disclosure does not imply that the parameters are necessarily sensed from the components or that the sensed parameters must be necessarily stored in the components. (Reply Br. 3-4.) Appeal 2009-001153 Application 09/672,935 5 Additionally, Appellant argues that the cited disclosure does not teach or suggest that the sensed parameters are data that identify the components from which the data is extracted. (Reply Br. 7.) Examiner’s Findings The Examiner finds that Tkacs discloses a monitoring station that stores component data. (Ans. 11.) Further, the Examiner finds that AAPA complements Tkacs by disclosing sensing data from the components, and storing identifying data within a component for at least a short period of time. (Id at 12.) The Examiner thus concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine these references to render claim 1 unpatentable. (Id.) II. ISSUE Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Tkacs, AAPA and Bapat renders claim 1 unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether the proffered combination teaches or suggests a monitoring station that collects monitored data from the components in which identifying component data is stored to thereby build a view of the components in real-time. Appeal 2009-001153 Application 09/672,935 6 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Tkacs 1. Tkacs discloses a system for dynamically representing in various languages the conditions of components in an industrial process. (Col. 4, ll. 10-19.) 2. As shown in Figure 1, a monitoring processor (24) senses the process parameters via a plurality of sensors (40), encodes their values, and stores them in a database to subsequently produce the multilingual visual representations including symbols, lines colors. (Col. 6, ll. 18-33, ll. 40- 52, and col. 7, ll. 28-35, ll. 54-59.) AAPA 3. AAPA discloses that industrial systems include numerous interconnected components, such as electric motors, protection devices, drives, starters, and relays that carry out desired industrial processes. (Spec. 1, ll. 12-17) 4. AAPA discloses that the processes may rely upon sensed parameters which are transmitted through a data network. (Spec. 1, ll. 17- 19.) Appeal 2009-001153 Application 09/672,935 7 IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Obviousness Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). V. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, a monitoring station that collects monitored data from the components in which identifying component data is stored to thereby build a view of the components in real- time. As set forth in the Findings of Facts section, Tkacs discloses a monitoring processor that senses parameters in a process of an industrial system to generate multilingual views of the process. (FF. 1-2.) Further, AAPA discloses that industrial processes are performed by relying upon sensed parameters of interconnected components of an industrial system. (FF. 3-4.) We find that the Tkacs - AAPA combination, at best, suggests a monitoring processor that senses parameters of interconnected components that make up an industrial process. However, we agree with Appellant that the cited disclosure does not suggest that the parameters are necessarily Appeal 2009-001153 Application 09/672,935 8 sensed from the components, let alone suggesting that the sensed parameters are stored in the components where they are sensed. We further agree with Appellant that the cited disclosure does not necessarily identify the components from which the parameters are sensed. Additionally, we find that Bapat does not cure the deficiencies of the Tkacs - AAPA combination. Since Appellant has shown at least one error in the rejection of claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. It follows that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the proffered combination renders independent claim 1 unpatentable. Because claims 2 through 28 also recite the limitations discussed above, we find that Appellant has also shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 1. VI. CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2009-001153 Application 09/672,935 9 VII. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 28. REVERSED dal Allen-Bradley Company LLC Attention John J Horn Patent Dept 704P Floor 8 T-29 1201 South Second Street Milwaukee WI 53204