Ex Parte Wayland et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2013

11403190 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DONALD J. WAYLAND, ANNE E. LINSCOTT,
and THOMAS D. SHERRILL
____________________

Appeal 2011-0069041
Application 11/403,190
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Invensys Systems, Inc. (App. Br. 1.)

Appeal 2011-006904
Application 11/403,190

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and programmable control system
executing a graphical human-machine interface (HMI) application for
monitoring the operation of industrial processes (process control data, e.g.,
sensor, alarms) (204) through a plurality of displayable views of process
control information. (Spec. 1, ll. 5-11.) In particular, the HMI application
(200) generates a graphical user interface (Fig. 11) occupied by a plurality of
full-sized faceplate overlays. Each faceplate overlay (Fig. 13) includes a set
of control buttons (1300) and a single pane (1302), such that the selection of
a control button causes detailed information associated therewith to be
displayed on the pane within the faceplate overlay from which the control
button was selected. (Spec. 19, ll. 12-21.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A computer system including a physical computer-
readable medium including computer-executable instructions
for a human machine interface (HMI) application for executing
a visualization project for a process control system, wherein the
visualization project comprises a set of displayable views of
process control information, the HMI application comprising:
a process control data interface for communicating with a
source of runtime process information for the set of displayable
views; and
Appeal 2011-006904
Application 11/403,190

3
a graphical user interface supporting display of a set of
faceplate overlays for providing detailed information relating to
a control block, wherein each full-sized faceplate overlay
occupies a portion of a graphical workstation display and each
faceplate overlay comprises:
a set of detailed information overlay controls and
wherein selection of one of the detailed information overlay
controls displays corresponding detailed information within a
detailed information pane of the faceplate overlay.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lucas US 2007/0179641 A1 Aug. 2, 2007
Havekost US 2008/0300698 A1 Dec. 4, 2008

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Havekost and Lucas.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6-11 and the Reply Brief, pages 4-9.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of Havekost and Lucas teaches or suggests a
faceplate overlay having therein a set of controls, wherein selecting one the
Appeal 2011-006904
Application 11/403,190

4
controls causes detailed information associated therewith to be displayed on
the pane of the faceplate overlay, as recited in claim 1?
Appellants argue that the proposed combination of Havekost and
Lucas does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above.
(App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 4-6.) According to Appellants, Lucas discloses two
separate faceplate overlays, whereupon selecting a control button within the
first faceplate overlay, detailed information associated therewith is displayed
in the pane of the second faceplate overlay. Therefore, Appellants argue that
because the detailed information is not displayed in the pane of the same
faceplate overlay containing the selected control button, Lucas does not
remedy the admitted deficiencies of Havekost. (Id.) Further, Appellants
argue that because Havekost discloses a faceplate overlay corresponding to a
PID control loop, there is no need for Havekost to display the detailed
information on its interface. (App. Br. 9.)
In response, the Examiner finds because the disputed claim limitations
do not require displaying within a single/same faceplate overlay both the
control buttons and a pane containing the detailed information associated
with a control button selected from the faceplate, Lucas’ disclosure of
displaying the detailed information in the pane associated with a faceplate
from which a control button was selected teaches the disputed limitations.
(Ans. 7-8.) Further, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to
modify Havekost’s single faceplate overlay with Lucas’ teaching to thereby
display therein the detailed information associated with a selected control
button. (Ans. 8.)
Appeal 2011-006904
Application 11/403,190

5
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection regarding claim 1. We note at the
outset, in light of Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s findings set
forth above, the pivotal issue before us turns on whether the disputed
limitations in fact require displaying within a single/same pane both the
control buttons and the detailed information associated with a button
selected from the pane. We answer this inquiry in the negative. The scope
of claim 1 does not require each faceplate overlay to be a single window.
While Appellants’ written description does in fact support the narrow claim
construction proffered by Appellants, we agree with the Examiner that such
claim interpretation is not the broadest reasonable one. That is, Appellants’
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the disputed claim
limitations. In particular, we echo the Examiner’s conclusion that the
recitation of displaying detailed information within a detailed information
pane of the faceplate overlay does not necessarily mean that the pane is
located within the faceplate overlay from which the control button
associated therewith was selected. (Ans. 7-8). In other words, it is not
unreasonable to interpret the recited detailed information pane as being
located within a separate faceplate overlay different from another faceplate
overlaywherein the control button sets are located. Clearly, under this claim
construction, the disputed limitations read on the admitted disclosure of
Lucas, as set forth above.
Further, we note in passing that it would only require routine skill for
one of ordinary skill to combine the two separate faceplate overlays of Lucas
into a single faceplate overlay containing both the control buttons and the
Appeal 2011-006904
Application 11/403,190

6
detailed information. Furthermore, we note in passing that Havekost’s
disclosure of displaying ALARMINFO in a pane located within a faceplate
overlay in response to selecting a control button (45) within the same
faceplate overlay (Havekost [0058]) teaches the disputed limitations as
narrowly argued by Appellants. It therefore follows that Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-20, to the extent Appellants have
either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, to the extent Appellants have raised additional
arguments for patentability of claims 2-20 (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5-9), we
find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of
those arguments by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ans. 8.) Therefore,
we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning incorporated
herein by reference. Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc