Norbert ROTTMANN

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2021000618 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022)

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. 14/016,788 09/03/2013 Norbert ROTTMANN 5029-1132-339165 7955 27799 7590 01/26/2022 COZEN O''CONNOR 3WTC, 175 Greenwich Street 55th Floor NEW YORK, NY 10007 EXAMINER BOOKER, KELVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2119 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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): patentdocket@cozen.com patentsecretary@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte NORBERT ROTTMANN _______________ Appeal 2021-000618 Application 14/016,788 Technology Center 2100 _______________ Before JASON J. CHUNG, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-4. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Siemens AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000618 Application 14/016,788 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to operating an automation device. Spec. ¶ 1. According to the Specification, operation of the automation device may be affected by influencing variables such as ambient temperature, power supply levels, humidity, etc. Spec. ¶ 2. The automation device may comprise a CPU module for processing a control program and a source module. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 10, Fig. 1. The source module may include the power supply for the automation device and a memory for storing the influencing variables or environmental data. Spec. ¶ 4, Fig. 1. In a disclosed embodiment, influencing variables are recorded via recording units or sensors and are stored in a data record of the memory of the source module. Spec. ¶ 11. The data record consists of a plurality of data records. Spec. ¶ 11. According to the Specification, the most recent influencing variable is always stored in the first data block. Spec. ¶ 11. In addition, if the capacity of the data record has been exhausted, the oldest influencing variables stored in the data record are overwritten with influencing variables to be stored. Spec. ¶ 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A method for operating an automation device having a CPU module for processing a control program and a source module connected via a bus and supplying sink modules of the automation device with electrical energy, the method comprising: recording variables available to the automation device and influencing an operation of the automation device; Appeal 2021-000618 Application 14/016,788 3 storing influencing variables in a memory of the source module as a data record having a plurality of data blocks, a current or most recent influencing variable always being stored in a first data block of the plurality of data blocks, oldest influencing variables in the plurality of data blocks being overwritten with influencing variables to be newly stored when a capacity of the memory of the source module is exhausted; allocating a time stamp to each data block of the plurality of data blocks using the source module; and providing read access via the CPU module to a data record having a predefined data record number and a data record length representing a number of data blocks to be read. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1-4 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conroy et al. (US 2007/0049134 A1; Mar. 1, 2007) (“Conroy”); Jiang et al. (US 2008/0170447 A1; July 17, 2008) (“Jiang”); and Victor S. Adamchik, Stacks and Queues, 1-4 (Carnegie Mellon University 2009), available at https://viterbi-web.usc.edu/~adamchik/ 15-121/lectures/Stacks%20and%20Queues/Stacks%20and%20Queues.html (“Adamchik”). Final Act. 2-7. ANALYSIS2 In rejecting independent claim 1, inter alia, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Conroy, Jiang, and Adamchik. See Final Act. 3-4. More specifically, the Examiner finds Conroy teaches most of the limitations 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed May 26, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 2, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 3, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed November 29, 2019 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2021-000618 Application 14/016,788 4 of claim 1, but does not teach explicitly storing “a current or most recent influencing variable always being stored in a first data block, [and] oldest influencing variables in the plurality of data blocks being overwritten with influencing variables to be newly stored when a capacity of the memory of the source module is exhausted.” Final Act. 3-4 (emphases omitted). The Examiner finds Jiang generally teaches a method of modifying currently stored memory data with currently updated data. Final Act. 4 (citing Jiang ¶¶ 21-22). The Examiner finds Adamchik “teaches a method of always storing data in the first part of memory.” Final Act. 4. In addition, the Examiner finds Adamchik teaches “[g]iven predetermined memory allocations, the oldest influencing variables are overwritten . . . when storage limits are realized/met.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 9. Appellant argues that Adamchik fails to teach the claimed storing of influencing variables in a memory such that the oldest influencing variables in the plurality of data blocks are overwritten when the capacity of the memory for storing influencing variables is exhausted. Appeal Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 1-4. In particular, Appellant argues that Adamchik merely describes “the old and well-known principles associated with FIFO [(first-in first-out)] registers.” Appeal Br. 5-7. However, Appellant asserts that Adamchik does not teach or suggest overwriting data blocks based on their temporal age, as provided for in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3. We begin our analysis with a brief review of Adamchik. Adamchik provides a high-level overview of stacks and queues. See Adamchik 1-4. Adamchik describes a stack as a container of objects that are stored and removed in a last-in first-out (LIFO) fashion. Adamchik 1. Appeal 2021-000618 Application 14/016,788 5 As such, the most recent data object is stored on the top of the stack. To access older data objects in the stack, the more recent data objects are removed (i.e., popped) from the stack consecutively. See Adamchik 1. Adamchik further describes for a fixed-size stack, when the stack is at capacity (i.e., the memory is exhausted), “the stack object throws an exception.” Adamchik 1. Regarding queues, Adamchik teaches that a queue is a container of data objects stored and removed in a first-in first-out (FIFO) manner. Adamchik 2. As Adamchik notes, the difference between stacks and queues is in removing data objects. Adamchik. In a stack, the most recently added data object is removed first, whereas in a queue, the oldest data object is removed. Adamchik 2. We find Adamchik’s storing of the most recent data object at the top of a stack fairly teaches storing a current or most recent influencing variable in a first data block of a plurality of data blocks. See Adamchik 1. However, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or technical reasoning to support a finding that the cited portion of Adamchik also teaches overwriting the oldest influencing variables with more recent influencing variables when a capacity of the memory is exhausted. Rather, Adamchik merely states that an exception is thrown. See Adamchik 1. To the extent the Examiner is relying on Adamchik’s teaching of removing the oldest data object from a queue when the queue is full and applying this technique as an exception handler to when a fixed-size stack is at capacity, we note that Adamchik has not expressly set forth possible exception handler approaches and the Examiner has not articulated adequately such an approach. Moreover, to the extent the Examiner is relying on Jiang’s teaching of modifying current data with updated data to teach overwriting Appeal 2021-000618 Application 14/016,788 6 the oldest influencing variable when the memory capacity is exhausted, the Examiner has not articulated how Jiang’s approach of modifying current data with updated data (i.e., overwriting existing data with newer data) could be applied to the management of a fixed-size stack as taught by Adamchik. For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 3, which recites similar limitations. In addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4, which depend from independent claims 1 and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4 103(a) Conroy, Jiang, Adamchik 1-4 REVERSED