Ex Parte Van Herk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13133457 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

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.
13/133,457 06/08/2011 Robert Van Herk 2008P01393WOUS 3410
138325 7590 05/01/2017
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
HAILE, BENYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
kim.larocca@philips.com
j o. c angelosi @ philips. com
Gigi.Miller@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT VAN HERK
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—5, 9, and 12—15. App. Br.,
Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
THE INVENTION
“The invention relates to automatically integrating a device such as a
lamp in a networked system such as a networked lighting system so that a
user does not have to set-up or configure the new device or lamp,
respectively.” Spec. 1. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for automatically integrating a device in a
networked system, comprising the automatically performed steps
of:
detecting a new device to be integrated in the networked system,
determining a reference device of the networked system, and
copying the functionality of the reference device to the new
device.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1—5, 9, and 12—15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Bump et al. (US 2007/0250180 Al; Oct. 25, 2007)
and Burr et al. (US 2008/0126665 Al; May 29, 2008). Final Act. 2—5
(Feb. 25,2015).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1, 3—5, and 13—15
Claim 1 is representative of claims 3—5 and 13—15. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014). The Examiner finds all of the limitations of
claim 1 taught or suggested by Bump alone, but further cites Burr as
additional support for teaching the claimed “detecting a new device to be
integrated in the networked system.” Final Act. 2—3;
2
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
More particularly, the Examiner finds Bump’s steps 700—722
(described infra) teach the limitations of claim 1 as described herein. Final
Act. 2 (citing Bump Fig. 7). Steps 704—706 suggest automatic detecting of a
new device. Id. (citing steps 706—710); Adv. Act. (May 5, 2015) (restricts
finding to steps 704—706). Step 712 teaches automatic determining of a
reference device. Final Act. 2. Finally, steps 714—716 teach automatic
copying of the reference device’s functionality to the new device. Id.
The Examiner also elaborates that, though Bump does not expressly
state steps 704—706 include automatic detection of the newly connected field
bus device, automatic detection is suggested by Bump’s disclosure of
selecting the device from a GUI. Id. at 3 (citing Bump || 62—63, 67;
Fig. 6a; stating “the user selects the new device from a set of all field
devices, which one of ordinary skill in the art clearly can understand to be
detecting the new device.”); see also Adv. Act. The Examiner further finds
Burr additionally teaches or suggests the claimed detecting step by
describing prior art detection of a newly connected field bus device. Id. at 3
(citing Burr H 109, 110; Figs. 12 (elements 1202, 1204)). The Examiner
provides a rationale for adding the automatic detection in view of Burr,
stating: “It would have been obvious ... to combine the teachings of Bump
with that of Burr so that. . . the system can automatically detect the new
device when it is physically connected.” Id.1
1 The Examiner summarizes Burr’s application in the Answer, stating:
“[TJhough Bump et al. does not explicitly state that the system automatically
detects the new device, it is well known in the art to automatically detect a
newly connected field device as supported by [Burr].” Ans. 3; see also id. at
4—5 (quoting Burr | 83 as stating: “The connection detector 806 . . . senses
3
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
The Examiner has articulated a comprehensive and well-reasoned
reliance on Bump and Burr at the record’s above-cited pages. As such, we
adopt the Examiner’s findings therein. We also adopt the concordant
findings at the Answer’s pages 2—5, which respond to Appellant’s
arguments. Though the above-adopted findings address the arguments, we
note the following arguments for emphasis.
Appellant argues:
Simply stated, the [Examiner’s] proposal is that operation 704
disclosed by Bump, et al. automatically detects a
newly-connected field device and evidence that such automatic
detection has occurred is provided by the fact that a user may
select the newly-connected field device through a computer
interface in subsequent operation 706.
However, Bump, et al. disclose, with respect to Fig. 7, that “the
automated Device Commissioning procedure 707 commences at
step 708” (see Bump, et al. 1 [0066], lines 4—6). Thus, Bump, et
al. disclose that the automated operations within Fig. 7 are
limited to those identified by reference character 707, and these
automated operations are referenced by characters 708—
718. Operations 704 and 706 are excluded from procedure 707.
App. Br. 5—6.
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. The Examiner finds steps
704 and 706, whereby the device is physically connected (step 704) and CP
707 is initiated (step 706), include the GUI (or attached operating system)
identifying and thus also detecting the device. See supra 2-4 (Examiner’s
findings). We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning because Bump’s GUI
identifies the device—not merely the connecting port—so the user may
when the field device 112a has been connected to the termination module
124a.’”).
4
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
select the device itself to initiate CP 707. Bump | 62; see also id. at Figs.
6a—b (GUIs identifying connected devices with specificity). In short, we
agree an artisan would contemplate the GUI as detecting a device itself for
the disclosed purpose of identifying a device itself (not merely a port
connection).
Moreover, Burr establishes that it was known in the art at the time to
automatically detect newly-connected field bus devices for purposes of
device identification. Burr | 83; see also fn. 2. Indeed, Burr expressly states
that networks responsively queried newly detected devices for identifying
information. Burr | 83 (“[T]he connection detector 806 [notifies] the
communication processor 804[, which] then queries . . . the field device
112a for the field device identification[.]”). Thus, Burr’s automated
detecting fits squarely within Bump’s GUI and steps for identifying the
newly connected device to the user. SeeKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“Common sense teaches . . . [that] in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.”).
Appellant also argues: “Even assuming, arguendo, that Bump et
al. disclose automatically detecting a newly-connected field device, as newly
proposed in the Advisory Action, Bump, et al. expressly discloses that
operation 706 is a manual operation.” App. Br. 6. The argument is
unpersuasive for each of two reasons. First, there is no indication that step
706’s operations are all manual operations; i.e., include no automated
operations for initiating CP 707. Second, even assuming step 706’s
operations are all manual operations, Burr plainly suggests adding an
5
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
automated detection of the new device. See supra 5 (addressing Burr’s
teachings).
Appellant also argues:
[E]ven though two of the operations disclosed by Bump, et
al. putatively have automated characteristics and these two
operations are those the Office correlates to Appellant’s recited
subject matter, the two operations are not “automatically
performed steps” because a manual operation intervenes between
them. Without a user performing a manual operation after the
putative automated detection in operation 704, operation 712 will
never occur. Thus, operation 712 is not “automatically
performed [.]”
App. Br. 6. The argument is not commensurate with claim l’s scope.
Nothing within claim 1 requires the three steps to be contiguously automatic.
That is, there is no requirement that each step initiate the next step. And, as
acknowledged by Appellant, Bump’s step 712 is part of the fully automated
CP 707 (Bump Fig. 7). Step 712 is thus, at the least, automatically
performed in itself.
Appellant also argues: “The [rejection] provides no indication that the
detection operation disclosed by Burr, et al. is automated, and Burr, et
al. does not disclose such. The connection detector of Burr, et al. could be
manually instructed to perform the detection of field device 112a.”
App. Br. 8. We disagree for the reasons above. Also note, Burr states:
The connection detector 806 may be implemented using, for
example, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a logic circuit, etc.
that senses when the field device 112a has been connected to the
termination module 124a. [Upon such sensing/detection,] the
connection detector 806 causes a notification (e.g., an interrupt)
to . . . the communication processor 804 . . . [, which] then
queries the termination module 124a and/or the field device 112a
for . . . identification information[.]”
6
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
Burr | 83. There is no reasonable doubt of automatic detection, notification,
and querying above.
Appellant also argues: “The Office has identified no evidence that
[Bump’s] user did not initiate the detection field device or inform the
computer interface of the connection of the field device.” App. Br. 10. As
discussed, nothing within claim 1 requires the three steps to be automatically
initiated; e.g., contiguously automatic. See supra. They are automatically
“performed”; e.g., upon being manually initiated.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3—5,
and 13—15.
Claim 9
As to independent claim 9, Appellant further argues: “Claim 9 recites
‘a wireless communication unit being adapted to wirelessly control devices
of the networked system.’ Neither the Final Rejection nor the Advisory
Action proposes that the applied references suggest wirelessly controlling
devices of a networked system.” App. Br. 10. The Final Action states claim
9 “reads on [Bump’s 123,11. 15—19 disclosure] that a local supervisory level
process control network are carried out via a wireless network interface[.]”
Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). And, Bump’s cited disclosure states:
“[W]hile hardwired connections ... are depicted in FIG. 1, such links
. . . are alternatively carried out via wireless network interfaces.”
Bump. 123 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument is without merit.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 9.
7
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
Claims 2 and 12
Claims 2 and 12 respectively depend from claims 1 and 9. Claim 2 is
representative and recites:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of detecting a new
device to be integrated in the networked system comprises
determining the capabilities of the new device, and the step of
determining a reference device of the networked system
comprises determining a reference device of the networked
system with capabilities similar to the capabilities of the new
device.
Appellant argues:
The Final Rejection proposes Bump, et al. disclose this subject
matter through operation 706 (see Final Rejection page 3,
penultimate paragraph).
However, Bump, et al. disclose, with respect to operation 706,
that “[a]t step 706 the user, through the configuration component
user interface depicted in FIG. 6a, initiates the Device
Commissioning action operation (i.e., Commission) of the set of
action options 604” (see Bump, et al. 1 [0066], lines 1^4). “In
response the automated Device Commissioning procedure 707
commences at step 708” (see lines 4—6).
App. Br. 11. The argument is not persuasive because Bump’s step 706
includes the user’s selecting of the new device via the GUI, which is the
manner by which Bump initiates determining of the device’s capabilities (in
initiated CP 707). Thus, Bump’s step 706 is indeed part of Bump’s
determining of the capabilities.
Also note, the initiated CP 707 includes steps 714 and 716, whereby
the new device’s “function blocks are configured in accordance with values
(see, e.g., FIG. 3) previously specified for the replaced field device[.]”
Bump | 68; see also id. at | 57. Thus, step 706 selects the new device. And,
8
Appeal 2016-008461
Application 13/133,457
the resulting CP 707 identifies a reference device (the replaced device) for
configuring the new device. Compare Appellant’s claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 12.
DECISION
The rejections of claim 1—5, 9, and 12—15 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9