ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

14937479 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2020)

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.
14/937,479 11/10/2015 Wayne R. Davis 2005P-267-
US2_ALBR0397-2
3521
42982 7590 09/23/2020
Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19
1201 South Second Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LINGLAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
howell@fyiplaw.com
raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE R. DAVIS
Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–35, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal. Appeal. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rockwell
Automation Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed subject matter is directed to a motor “drive system that
includes a server (and appropriate software).” Spec. ¶ 15. Claims 1, 23, and
31 are independent. Appeal Br. 21–25. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference:
1. A motor system, comprising:
a housing;
a motor drive disposed within the housing;
a drive module integrated in the motor drive within the
housing and comprising a plurality of power electronic switches
that are switched in operation in response to control signals to
control application of power to an electric motor;
drive control circuitry in the housing that generates the
control signals in operation; and
an add-on adapter disposed in the housing and
communicatively coupled to the drive control circuitry, the
adapter comprising a network server configured to communicate
data for a web page relating to operation of the electric motor and
to interact with the drive control circuitry to control the electric
motor based upon user interaction with the web page.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Navab US 2002/0069013 A1 June 6, 2002
Batke US 2002/0156837 A1 Oct. 24, 2002
Papadopoulos US 6,587,884 B1 July 1, 2003
Birzer US 6,757,568 B2 June 29, 2004
Ware US 2004/0236443 A1 Nov. 25, 2004
PowerFlex Communications, EtherNet/lP Adapter, 22–COMM–E FRN
1.xxx, User Manual by Rockwell Automation, January 2004
(“PowerFlex”)

Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479

3
Claims 1–6, 8–13, 16 and 19–35 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over PowerFlex, Batke and Birzer. Final Act. 11.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over PowerFlex, Batke, Birzer, and Papadopoulos. Final Act.
18.
Claims 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over PowerFlex, Batke, Birzer, and Ware. Final Act.
19.
Claim 17 is rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over PowerFlex, Batke, Birzer, and Navab. Final Act. 20.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree
with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our
analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.

Control an Electric Motor
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error
because the “combined references do not teach or suggest operating power
electronic switches to control an electric motor” as claimed. Appeal Br. 7
(emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that “PowerFlex only discusses
viewing the operation of a motor, Batke merely teaches controlling control
device without specifying that the control device includes drive control
Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479

4
circuitry that controls the operation of power electronic switches, and Birzer
merely discusses retrieving documentation from an integrated controller.”
Id. at 8.
Appellant separately attacks Batke and Birzer for limitations that the
Examiner does not rely on them for. Compare Appeal Br. 9 (“Batke does
not teach interacting with drive control circuitry, but rather, with control
devices, such as programmable logic controllers (PLCs).”) and Appeal Br.
13 (“Birzer cannot obviate control of a motor drive.”) with Final Act. 11
(“PowerFlex disclosed a motor drive system”), Ans. 5–6 (“The difference
between PowerFlex and the claimed invention is the function of the web
server in the adapter,” and relying on “Batke in view of Birzer” for these
remaining limitations.). Appellant’s arguments against Batke and Birzer
individually do not show the Examiner’s reliance on PowerFlex is in error.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding “PowerFlex clearly
disclosed motor drives such as PowerFlex 40,” which teaches “operating
power electronic switches to control an electric motor” in response to control
signals generated by drive control circuitry, as claimed. Ans. 7. First,
PowerFlex teaches “each of the PowerFlex drive and OSI devices is a motor
drive,” and we agree with the examiner that “the function of a motor drive is
to control the motor.” Ans. 6; PowerFlex page G-2 (“motor drive such as a
PowerFlex 4-Class drive.”); PowerFlex 3-11 (“If the adapter is transmitting
control I/O to the drive.”); cf. Spec. ¶ 5 (“Drives can be used to control
motors . . . . Exemplary medium voltage AC drives include, for example, the
Allen-Bradley PowerFlex 7000 family of drives manufactured by Rockwell
Automation, Inc. of Milwaukee, Wis., the beneficial assignee of the present
Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479

5
application.”).2 Second, the Examiner further finds—and Appellant does not
challenge—that operating power electronic switches to control an electric
motor is inherent in the drive of PowerFlex. See Ans. 6 (“one of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that ‘electronic switches’ (electronic
components or devices that can switch an electrical circuit) must be included
in a drive module to be able to control an electric motor.”); see also Reply
Br. 2. Appellant does not show the Examiner’s findings are in error.
We agree with the Examiner that PowerFlex teaches or suggests
operating switches to control3 a motor, as claimed. See Final Act. 11.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding PowerFlex
teaches or suggest the recited “‘plurality of power electronic switches that
are switched in operation in response to control signals to control application
of power to an electric motor; drive control circuitry in the housing that
generates the control signals in operation’ . . . as part as part of the function
and component of a motor drive for controlling electric motor.” Ans. 17, 18.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error.

2 Separately, we note PowerFlex further describes motor control. See, e.g.,
PowerFlex page 7-6 (“This example program enables you to: . . . Control the
drives using various Logic Command bits (Stop, Start, etc.) and
Reference.”); page G-6 (“The Logic Command is used to control the
PowerFlex drive (e.g., start, stop, direction).”).
3 Appellant contends the claims require “directly power[ing] the power
electronic switches” and controlling the motor drive “without the use of
intermediary controllers.” Appeal Br. 13, 15. Although not relied on for our
decision herein, we note that such narrow construction would require
reading disclosed embodiments out of the claims. See, e.g. Spec. ¶¶ 58, 62,
63, and 64.
Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479

6
Server to Operate Drive Control Circuitry Via a Web Page
Appellant argues “one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it
obvious to combine the teachings of PowerFlex, Batke, and Birzer to use a
server to operate drive control circuitry via a web page” as required by claim
1. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant contends “neither Batke nor Birzer teaches
sending control signals via a web page to control power electronic switches,
such as the power electronic switches of PowerFlex,” and “generally
suggesting using a web access method and system to enable interaction
between users and control devices does not obviate the specific manner to
control drive control circuitry of an electric motor.” Reply Br. 2, 5; see also
Appeal Br. 9–11, 15, 16.
Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the
limitations of claim 1 to be obvious in view of the combined teachings of the
references. That is, Appellant argues the references only disclose a “general
suggestion” whereas the claim recites a “specific manner,” but Appellant
does not persuade us of any recited specificity that is lacking in the
references. See Reply Br. 3, 4. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that one
of ordinary skill would find the recitations of claim 1 to be obvious in view
of the combined teachings of PowerFlex, Birzer, and Batke. See Advisory
Act. 2.
As discussed above, PowerFlex teaches a motor control drive
including circuitry that generates control signals in operation and controls an
electric motor (see Ans. 12); PowerFlex further teaches an add-on adapter
disposed in the housing and communicatively coupled to the drive control
circuitry, the adapter comprising a network server configured to
communicate data for a web page. See PowerFlex Fig. 2.3; page 3–10, page
Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479

7
9–1 (“instructions on how to monitor the adapter and connected PowerFlex
drive using the adapter’s web interface”); Final Act. 11. Birzer, as cited by
the Examiner, teaches an integrated controller having web server
functionality and a drive that controls an electric motor. See Birzer Figs. 14
(depicting a control program for the integrated controller), 15; 7:56–65;
claim 7; Advisory Act. 2. Batke, as cited by the Examiner, teaches a control
device having a server to communicate web pages and to interact with drive
circuitry to control an industrial operation. See Batke ¶ 14 (“[T]he present
invention relates to an industrial control system for controlling an industrial
process. The industrial control system includes a plurality of control devices
each of which contributes to the controlling of the controlled process. Each
control device includes a respective web server program.”); Advisory Act. 2.
Appellant does present evidence or sufficient technical reasoning to
persuade us the Examiner’s reliance on PowerFlex, Bizer, and Batke for
these teachings is in error.
Nor does Appellant challenge the Examiner’s obviousness rationale.
See Reply Br. 2–6. We find the Examiner’s analysis to be reasonable. See
Ans. 16; Final Act. 12. Accordingly, Appellant does not show the Examiner
errs in finding one of ordinary skill would find the limitations of claim 1 to
be obvious in view of the combining teachings of PowerFlex, Bizer, and
Batke. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“arguments or authorities not
included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”). Rather, we agree with the Examiner that
Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479

8
one of ordinary skill would modify PowerFlex’s motor drive add-on adapter
with Batke’s teachings of web based remote controlling of industrial
processes and Birzer’s web server and motor control, in order to control
PowerFlex’s motor in the manner claimed. See Ans. 16, 17. Accordingly,
we find the limitations of claim 1 are obvious in view of the combined
teachings of the cited references.
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellant does not present additional substantive arguments with
respect the remaining claims. See Appeal Br. 17–20. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed above.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–13,
16, 19–35
103(a) PowerFlex, Batke,
Birzer
1–6, 8–13,
16, 19–35

7 103(a) PowerFlex, Batke,
Birzer,
Papadopoulos
7
14, 15, 18 103(a) PowerFlex, Batke,
Birzer, Ware
14, 15, 18
17 103(a) PowerFlex, Batke,
Birzer, Navab
17
Overall
Outcome
1–35
Appeal 2019-003394
Application 14/937,479

9

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED