SEW-EURODRIVE GMBH & CO. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 22, 2021

2020001287 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 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.
15/029,954 04/15/2016 Roland BRECHT 116218.0246338 (145) 8601
31554 7590 07/22/2021
CARTER, DELUCA & FARRELL LLP
576 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD
MELVILLE, NY 11747
EXAMINER
PATEL, HARDIKKUMAR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2021 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@carterdeluca.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLAND BRECHT
Appeal 2020-001287
Application 15/029,954
Technology Center 2400
Before DAVID J. CUTITTA II, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11–17, 25, and 26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to driverless transport systems with multiple
vehicles where data transmission cannot be done in real-time. Spec.1:2–14.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies SEW-EURODRIVE GmbH & Co. KG as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001287
Application 15/029,954

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 11 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
11. A method for operating a system for intralogistic transport,
the system having subscribers and/or vehicles, which are
connected via a data transmission channel such that each
subscriber is a subscriber of a group of subscribers connected for
data transmission via the data transmission channel, the data
transmission being not real-time capable and including a WLAN
connection, each subscriber having a time base and/or a clock,
comprising:
forming a group;
synchronizing the time base of each subscriber of the
group; and
moving the subscribers in accordance with a respective
subscriber functioning as a master or in mutual dependence,
depending on a respective position of at least one other
subscriber of the group or on a respective position of multiple or
all other subscribers of the group.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Number Date
Defrance US 8,730,867 B2 May 20, 2014
Wu US 2012/0252503 A1 Oct. 4, 2012
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 11–17, 25, and 26 as obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Defrance and Wu. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner states, “Claims 18-24 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form . . . .” Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-001287
Application 15/029,954

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 11 and 26 recite “moving the subscribers in
accordance with a respective subscriber functioning as a master or in mutual
dependence, depending on a respective position of at least one other
subscriber of the group or on a respective position of multiple or all other
subscribers of the group.”
The Examiner relies on Wu for teaching this limitation. Ans. 5, 11–
13; Final Act. 4. The examples in Wu relied upon by the Examiner
generally teach a master node, two slave nodes, and a mobile node. E.g.,
Wu ¶¶ 64–65, Fig. 6. Wu teaches that “the positions of the master node and
slave nodes are assumed to be exactly known” but the position of the mobile
node is not known, so the mobile node “eavesdrops” on the communications
between the master node and its slave nodes in order to calculate the mobile
node’s position. Id. ¶¶ 64–65, Abstract (“The . . . present invention provides
a mobile node . . . , such as an aircraft, . . . the ability to determine its own
position by passively listening to wireless time synchronization
communications . . . exchanged between [master and slave] nodes over a
wireless network.”).
Appellant argues that “Wu does not disclose, or even suggest, that the
master node 1 or the slave nodes 2 and 3 are moved or are moveable.”
Appeal Br. 5. Instead, Wu discloses that the master and slave nodes are at
“known locations,” which Appellant argues suggests that they are at fixed
locations. Id. (citing Wu ¶ 64). And although Wu’s mobile node is
moveable, Appellant argues that it is “freely movable entirely independent
of the position of all other nodes” and thus no movement of a node depends
on the position of any other node. Id.
Appeal 2020-001287
Application 15/029,954

4
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained
sufficiently how Wu teaches or suggests this limitation.
First, the Examiner refers to the “position” of the master node and
slave nodes as “(Xm/s1, Ym/s1, and Zm/s1)” and later confuses this for
velocity: “its m/s1 is the speed or velocity indicating the master node and
slave nodes are moving.” Ans. 13 (emphasis added). However, we agree
with Appellant that Wu “merely indicates positions of ‘Master Node 1’
(xm,ym,zm), ‘Slave Node 1’ (xs1,y s1,z s1), ‘Slave Node 2’ (xs2,y s2,z s2), and
‘Mobile Node 4 (eavesdropper)’ (xe,y e,z e).” Reply Br. 5 (citing Wu Fig. 6,
¶ 77). The subscripts “m” and “s1” merely indicate “Master Node 1” and
“Slave Node 1.” Wu itself does not appear to ever disclose the phrasing
“m/s1,” let alone velocity.
Second, the Examiner relies on Wu’s disclosure that “a database is
maintained locally at the mobile node and is updated periodically with the
latest position data over the wireless network.” Wu ¶ 65; Ans. 12–13.
However, it is not clear why that disclosure would mean the master and
slave nodes move when that disclosure could just as easily be explained as a
mobile node (e.g., an aircraft) traveling so far that it crosses network
boundaries and needs position data for the fixed nodes in the next network.
See Wu ¶ 67 (“A boundary node is a node that has multiple network
connections and can accurately bridge the time synchronization from one
network segment to another”; “A boundary node can act as a slave node in
one network segment and a master node in another network segment.”).
Third, the Examiner also cites “Figs. 3, 4, 6.” Ans. 11. Although the
Examiner’s discussion appears to focus more on “Figs. 4 and 6” (see id. at
12), we note that the description of Figure 3—a single sentence in a single
Appeal 2020-001287
Application 15/029,954

5
paragraph—does state that “the mobile receiver” can be “time synchronized
to the wireless transceivers,” in which case “the mobile node is either a slave
node or a boundary node.” Wu ¶ 47, Fig. 3 (showing an example in which
“Mobile / Slave Node#4” is time synchronized with “Boundary Node#3”).
However, the mobile node communicating directly with one or more nodes
(rather than just eavesdropping) still does not teach or suggest the other
nodes moving, particularly when the Examiner has not explained why the
other nodes have known positions but the mobile node does not.
Fourth, the Examiner relies on Figure 6 of Wu. Ans. 12. Although
not cited by the Examiner, the brief description of Figure 6 does disclose,
“FIG. 6 illustrates an example of a unmanned aerial system (UAS) mobile
node passively listening (eavesdropping) on wireless time synchronization
communications between two pairs of UAS master-slave nodes . . . .” Wu
¶ 42 (emphasis added). Paragraph 35 and claim 21 of Wu (also not cited by
the Examiner) similarly disclose that the master and slave nodes can be “part
of a unmanned aerial system (UAS).” However, an unmanned aerial system
(UAS) includes not only the unmanned aircraft (UA) or unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) but also any components that control the aircraft and any
communication links (e.g., Boundary Node #3 in Figure 3). See, e.g., 49
U.S.C. § 44801(11)–(12) (defining “unmanned aircraft” as just the aircraft,
but defining “unmanned aircraft system” as not only the aircraft but also
“associated elements (including communication links and the components
that control the unmanned aircraft)”). The Examiner has not explained why
Wu’s master and slave nodes—even if part of a UAS—would be movable
rather than unmovable control elements or communication links, particularly
Appeal 2020-001287
Application 15/029,954

6
given that the master and slave nodes have known positions whereas the one
“mobile” node has an unknown position.
Finally, even if we were to assume that all of the nodes in Wu were
moveable (e.g., all unmanned aircraft), the Examiner fails to explain why
any of the nodes would be moved “as a master or in mutual dependence.”
See Appeal Br. 5–6. We agree with Appellant that the mobile node appears
to move independently of the master and slave nodes. Appeal Br. 5. And
the “master” and “slave” titles are used with respect to the IEEE 1588
Precision Time Protocol. Wu ¶ 4. The Examiner has not explained whether
or why a master-slave relationship would also exist for any movement of
those nodes.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–
17, 25, and 26.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–17, 25, 26 103 Defrance, Wu 11–17, 25, 26
REVERSED