Ex Parte Ruehl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

13957463 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/957,463 08/02/2013
95683 7590 09/24/2018
Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Ruehl
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.
813241 5324
EXAMINER
GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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 MAR TIN RUEHL,
ANDREAS PILLEKEIT, and FRANK MERTENS
Appeal 2016-008091 1
Application 13/957,463 2
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 15-24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral arguments on September 13, 2018.
A transcript of the hearing will be added to the record in due course.
We reverse.
1 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Nov.
30, 2015), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 22, 2016), and Specification
("Spec.," filed Aug. 2, 2013), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed July 1, 2016), the Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed Sept. 1,
2015), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 9, 2015).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "dSP ACE digital
signal processing and control engineering GmbH." App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-008091
Application 13/957,463
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to a configuration tool for
configuring a model of a technical system on a computer having a display."
Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A configuration tool, comprising:
a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium
having computer-executable instructions for configuring a
model of a technical system and displaying the model on a
display connected to a computer;
wherein the model includes at least two model
components, including a first model component having multiple
ports;
wherein the first model component is displayable in an
expanded component representation and in a reduced
component representation on the display, and
wherein the first model component is displayable in an
expanded line representation and in a reduced line
representation on the display;
wherein the first model component is displayable in the
reduced line representation independently of whether the first
model component is displayed in the expanded component
representation or in the reduced component representation;
wherein while the first model component is displayed in
the expanded component representation with the expanded line
representation, the multiple ports of the first model component
are displayed and connections to the multiple ports of the first
model component are represented by individual port association
lines connected to the multiple ports of the first model
component;
wherein while the first model component is displayed in
the expanded component representation with the reduced line
representation, the multiple ports of the first model component
are displayed and connections to the multiple ports of the first
model component are represented by a single component
association line connected to a reduced port of the first
2
Appeal 2016-008091
Application 13/957,463
model component; and
wherein while the first model component is displayed in
the reduced component representation with the reduced line
representation, the multiple ports of the first model component
are not displayed and connections to the multiple ports of the
first model component are represented by the single component
association line connected to a reduced port of the first model
component.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Biermann et al. (US 2008/0091279 Al;
published Apr. 17, 2008) (hereinafter "Biermann"). Final Act. 9-18; Ans. 8.
(2) The Examiner provisionally rejected claim 1 for obviousness-
type double patenting over claim 1 of copending Application
No. 13/466,261 ("the '261 application"). The '261 application has since
been abandoned. See Notice of Abandonment, mailed Mar. 9, 2018.
Accordingly, we summarily reverse this provisional rejection.
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether Biermann discloses
displaying a model component in an expanded component and a reduced line
representation.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Biermann only discloses displaying model
components in either (i) an entirely expanded form or (ii) an entirely reduced
form, but not in mixed form (e.g., an expanded component representation
and a reduced line representation) in accordance with independent claim 1.
App. Br. 5 (citing Biermann Figs. 1-10).
3
Appeal 2016-008091
Application 13/957,463
For an expanded component and a reduced line representation, the
individual ports of the model component are displayed and component
association lines between connected model components are displayed while
port association lines between individual ports are not shown. See App.
Br. 6-7 ( citing Fig. 2); see also App. Br. 6 (reciting for claim 1 for the
disputed representation that "the multiple ports of the first model component
are displayed and connections to the multiple ports of the first model
component are represented by a single component association line connected
to a reduced port of the first model component"). This concept is illustrated
in the bottom half of Appellants' Figure 2, reproduced below.
~'\.'I
4.a 4cop
' ,
6a
\
' ·,, f ? •• -·
l
~C1 . · .... ·i'. --i----~...-. (-~:'5-... ·-··--~l
-~ -~/ ; -qo~Jt 2 ~~ I
I 0Jt 1 ~ J In 2 J
!..,.._ "'"-~ _,.,.,-,~--~~.«,«•'AV "k ·" ~ ; ~: t'•''"• ··•••••-·•••••••"••••-'•••••--•~•••••"""••~'
,.
' 4b 4d
Appellants' Figure 2 (bottom half) illustrates an expanded component
representation (i.e., component Cl showing its two ports 4a and 4b and
component C3 showing its two ports 4c and 4d) and a reduced line
representation (i.e., a component association line (from reduced ports 6a to
6b) is shown connecting the components C 1 and C3 while not showing
which ports of the components Cl and C3 are connected (i.e., no port
association lines between the ports 4a--4d are shown)). See Spec. ,r,r 46--49,
Fig. 2.
4
Appeal 2016-008091
Application 13/957,463
Appellants argue Biermann does not disclose for a model component
the expanded component and reduced line representation. See App. Br. 7-8
( citing Biermann Fig. 8); Reply Br. 2--4 ( citing Biermann Figs. 1, 8).
Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner conflates port association lines
(which connect individual ports) and component association lines (which
connect reduced ports)- in Biermann's Figure 1 and 8, the line the
Examiner points to as a component association line is incorrect because it
connects to actual ports of the components, rather than connecting to
reduced ports to illustrate a reduced line representation. See, e.g., Reply
Br. 6-7.
The Examiner finds Biermann's Figures 1 and 8 illustrate "an
expanded component representation with reduced line representation and
multiple ports with at least a single component associate line." Ans. 2-3,
5---6 ( citing Biermann Figs. 1, 8). The Examiner also finds Biermann
discloses that "different selections or elements of one and the same control
system can be displayed and configured in different, independent working
views ... the different selections of I/0 access points and/or of hardware
functionalities and/or of hardware interfaces of different working view[s]
may have intersections." Ans. 4 ( emphasis omitted) ( citing Biermann
,r,r 20, 23).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We find Biermann fails
to disclose an expanded component and a reduced line representation. See
Biermann Figs. 1, 8. We agree with Appellants that the line connecting the
Examiner cited I/0 ports is a port association line between individual ports
rather than a component association line between connected model
components (i.e., at the reduced port). See id.; see also Appellants' Fig. 2
5
Appeal 2016-008091
Application 13/957,463
( showing a component association line). The claim language clearly
(i) requires the use of a component association line for the reduced line
representation and (ii) delineates between a port association line, which is
from an individual port of the model component, and a component
association line, which is from a reduced port of the model component
without display of any port association lines from the individual ports of the
model component. See App. Br. 17 ( claim 1 ).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 102(a)(l) rejection
of independent claim 1, nor independent claims 15 and 16, for which
Appellants make the same arguments. We also do not sustain the
Examiner's§ 102(a)(l) rejection of claims 2, and 17-24, as each of them
depend at least indirectly from one of the independent claims. 3
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2 and 15-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
We reverse the Examiner's provisional rejection of claim 1 for
obviousness-type double patenting.
REVERSED
3 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
for the claims on appeal whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing
to claim patent eligible subject matter is appropriate. Although the Board is
authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), no inference should
be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See MPEP § 1213.02.
6