2020002165 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2021)

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 19, 2021

2020002165 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2021)

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. 15/692,969 08/31/2017 Alan J. Campbell 2016P-243-US- ORG1 (0678) 5301 42982 7590 03/19/2021 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19 1201 South Second Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 EXAMINER CHAN, KAWING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2846 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/19/2021 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 ALAN J. CAMPBELL and SCOTT D. BRAUN Appeal 2020-002165 Application 15/692,969 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-002165 Application 15/692,969 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a motor drive with independent physical backplane communication. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: converter circuitry to convert incoming three-phase power to DC power; inverter circuitry to convert the DC power to three-phase controlled frequency AC power to drive a motor; a plurality of functional circuits each configured to carry out a control, monitoring, or feedback operation with respect to a driven motor or load; control circuitry coupled to the inverter circuitry and configured to receive feedback signals, apply control signals to the inverter circuitry for conversion of the DC power to the controlled frequency AC power, and supply variable control events and/or system events to the functional circuits; and a physical backplane providing data communication between the control circuitry and the functional circuits, the physical backplane having separate and independent conductive data lines for each functional circuit, thus allowing data transfer between the control circuitry and each functional circuit at different data transfer rates, wherein the physical backplane comprises a dedicated functional circuit support board configured for data transmission only, and wherein the control circuitry employs one or more different control event intervals and/or system event intervals with each functional circuit; wherein the control circuitry chooses the clock rates, and thus data transfer rates, for each respective functional circuit based on optimal performance for each respective functional circuit. Appeal 2020-002165 Application 15/692,969 3 REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Campbell US 2010/0123420 A1 May 20, 2010 REJECTION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–11, 13–19 102(a)(1) Campbell OPINION We need address only the independent claims (1, 7, and 16). Those claims require that control circuitry chooses clock rates, and thus data transfer rates, for each of a plurality of functional circuits based on optimal performance for each respective functional circuit. Campbell discloses a motor drive comprising “a control circuit or board and a one or more functional circuits or option boards coupled to the control board” (Abstract). Each option board (604) may be connected to the control board (602) by a serial interface (606) and may include a clock that controls the timing of signaling on the respective serial interface (606) (¶ 36). “By using the dedicated serial interfaces 606, the control board 602 allows transfer for serial communication of information from the option boards simultaneously and in parallel” (id.). The control board (602) and option boards (604) include channels that carry coordinated signals which, to ensure synchronization regardless of the clock timing of each option board, have a data acquisition window and a transfer interval (¶¶ 36, 39). The clock rates of the option boards are set to ensure that the data is transferred within the data acquisition window (id.). “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be Appeal 2020-002165 Application 15/692,969 4 disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner finds that “the data transfer rate of the option board as disclosed by Campbell is indirectly set by the clock rates (the data acquisition window & transfer interval) of the control board/circuitry 602 according to the data acquisition window and transfer interval” (Ans. 4). Campbell’s data acquisition window and transfer interval are not clock rates but, rather are the periods during which synchronized data transfer between the control board (602) and the option boards (604) takes place (¶ 39). The data transfer clock rates during those periods are controlled by the option boards (604), not by the control board (602) (¶ 36). Thus, the Examiner has not established that Campbell discloses every limitation of the Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–19 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–11, 13–19 102(a)(1) Campbell 1–11, 13–19 REVERSED