Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2021

2021003631 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 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.
16/033,778 07/12/2018 Birger LANDWEHR 76338 4025
23872 7590 12/01/2021
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
P.O. BOX 9227
SCARBOROUGH STATION
SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227
EXAMINER
BOUSONO, ORLANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte BIRGER LANDWEHR and MARCO BERNUTZ
________________

Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 20, 21, and 26.1 Appeal Br.
13–24. Claims 3, 7–19, and 22–25 are withdrawn or canceled. Appeal Br.
26–27 (Claims App.). Oral hearings were held October 21, 2021. A
transcript will be entered into the record in due course. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA.as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a device for an alarm
server that includes an interface for communication with one or more alarm
sources and with one or more alarm generators. Abstract.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named
inventor of each reference is listed):
Name Reference Date
Day US 2015/0317891 A1 Nov. 5, 2015
Nixon US 2018/0109955 A1 Apr. 19, 2018
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–6, 20, 21, and 26 as follows:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation
1, 2, 4–6, 20, 21, 26 103 Nixon, Day Final Act. 3–6
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 20, and 21
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below (disputed limitations
emphasized and bracketing added).
1. An alarm server device comprising:
[1] one or more interfaces for communication with one or more
alarm sources and with one or more alarm generators;
a memory for storing information relating to one or more
alarms; and
a control module configured to control the one or more
interfaces and the memory, configured to receive an indication
relating to an alarm via the one or more interfaces from an
alarm source and to store the information relating to the alarm
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

3

in the memory and [2] configured to receive an alarm request
from an alarm generator via the one or more interfaces and to
provide the alarm for the alarm generator upon receipt of the
alarm request if information relating to the alarm is stored in the
memory, the control module being [3] configured to provide or
confirm the information relating to the alarm to the alarm
generator according to a pull method for the alarm generator,
the control module being configured to trigger a forwarding to
additional alarm generators after confirmation of the presence
of an alarm to the alarm generator if the alarm generator fails to
confirm an acknowledgment of a presence of an alarm by a user
after a predefined time.
Appeal Br. 26, Claims App.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nixon’s process plant
environment teaches or suggests [1] “one or more interfaces for
communication with one or more alarm sources and with one or more alarm
generators.” Final Act. 3 (citing Nixon ¶¶ 64, 74, 87, 110); Final Act. 10–11
(further citing Nixon ¶¶ 70, 72, Fig. 1A, 1I–J); Ans. 8–10. Appellant
contends the Examiner erred because Nixon merely discloses “a graphical
configuration system 34 which generally facilitates the creation of control
and monitoring schemes” and “making the graphical displays that will be
displayed to users, instead of actually controlling an actual interface to an
alarm generator.” Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the process plant
environment of Nixon, further illustrated in Nixon’s Figure 1A, which is
reproduced below, teaches or suggests the claimed interfaces.
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

4

Nixon’s Figure 1A illustrates process plant 10, which comprises a
mobile services infrastructure 12 and other devices—such as configuration
database 60, user database 66, and host or operator workstations 30 and
32—that communicates with mobile devices 14 via wireless connections and
with field devices 44 and 46 via data highway 54 and input/output devices or
cards 48. Nixon ¶¶ 62, 65–67.
Nixon illustrates the communications with mobile devices 14 in more
detail in Figure 1L, which is reproduced below.
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

5

Nixon’s Figure 1L illustrates that at the mobile services level 158,
mobile server 178 communicates with mobile device 14 via a logical
connection, with a Wi-Fi Access Point or Notification Services providing
wireless network connectivity to mobile device 14. Nixon makes clear that
“mobile server 178 is coupled to the mobile devices 14 over any of a variety
of wireless data technologies, which may include Wi-Fi (i.e., protocols of
the IEEE 802.11 protocol suite) and/or mobile (‘cellular’) infrastructure.”
Nixon ¶ 96.
The disclosed communications in Nixon would make use of interfaces
such as input/output devices or cards or their wireless counterparts. See, e.g.,
Nixon ¶ 65. These enable communications with the field devices, which the
Examiner correctly finds teaches the claimed alarm sources. Final Act. 7.
They also enable communications with the mobile devices, which teach the
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

6

claimed alarm generators. Id. at 9. Therefore, Nixon’s mobile services
infrastructure and other device communications with the field devices (i.e.,
alarm sources) and with the mobile devices (i.e., alarm generators) teach or
suggest [1] “one or more interfaces for communication with one or more
alarm sources and with one or more alarm generators.”
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner further relies on Nixon’s
notification or alarm criteria to teach or suggests a control module [2]
“configured to receive an alarm request from an alarm generator.” Final Act.
3–4 (citing Nixon ¶¶ 99, 103–04, 110); Ans. 10–12. Appellant contends the
Examiner erred because there is “no disclosure that controller 40 of Nixon is
configured to receive an alarm request from an alarm generator.” Appeal Br.
19; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because Nixon specifically
teaches that “a user of the remote computing device may set notification or
alarm criteria associated with any process data of the process control system
by inclusion in the data list or by otherwise communicating such criteria to
the mobile server 178.” Nixon ¶ 110. Such criteria fall within a reasonably
broad interpretation of the claimed alarm request because, as Nixon teaches,
mobile server 178 may “send any requested notifications or alarms to the
remote computing device when the corresponding criteria are met.” Id.
(emphasis added). Moreover, as noted above, the remote computing device,
or mobile device, teaches or suggests the claimed alarm generator. See also
Nixon ¶ 185 (“the disclosure herein generally exemplifies remote computing
devices as mobile devices 14”); Final Act. 9. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Nixon teaches or suggests a control module [2] “configured to
receive an alarm request from an alarm generator.”
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

7

In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nixon fails “to teach the
control module being configured to provide or confirm the information
relating to the alarm to the alarm generator according to a pull method for
the alarm generator.” Final Act. 4. As Appellant correctly notes, the
rejection does not otherwise “appear to indicate where this ‘pull’ method is
disclosed in” Nixon. Appeal Br. 19. The Examiner, however, finds that
Day’s using of “pings” to determine pumps that are available for
configuration teaches or suggests a pull method because “‘pinging’ the
pumps to determine their current status is analogous to ‘pulling’ information
regarding their current status.” Ans. 5–6 (citing Day ¶ 55, Fig. 5).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the disclosed
“pinging/pulling in [Day] is not by an alarm generator from an alarm
server.” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner, however, relies on Nixon, not Day, to
teach or suggest an alarm generator and alarm server. Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant’s argument against Day individually is not persuasive given the
Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings of Nixon and Day. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, we agree with the
Examiner that Day’s using of pinging to determine the current status of
pumps teaches or suggests a pull method because the current status
information is not sent until monitor/controller system 18 pings for the
available pumps. Day Fig. 5. Moreover, Appellant does not show error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify Nixon
using the teachings and suggestions of Day “in order to provide [an]
opportunity [for] alarm suppression.” Final Act. 5 (citing Day ¶ 25).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Nixon and
Day teaches or suggests a control module [3] “configured to provide or
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

8

confirm the information relating to the alarm to the alarm generator
according to a pull method for the alarm generator.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 20, and 21, which Appellant argues are patentable
for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 19–24.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and
bracketing added).
5. An alarm server device in accordance with claim 1, wherein
the control module is configured to store one or more
components of a group consisting of: an identification of the
alarm source; properties of the alarm; a category of the alarm; a
location of the alarm; a priority of the alarm in the memory
associatively with the indication, and to [4] forward it to the
alarm generator with confirmation of the alarm.
Appeal Br. 26, Claims App.
In rejecting claim 5 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Nixon’s
teaching of use of a mobile device to view details of an alarm teaches or
suggests a control module configured to [4] “forward it to the alarm
generator with confirmation of the alarm.” Final Act. 6 (citing Nixon ¶ 87);
Ans. 12–14. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Nixon fails to
teach “confirmation of an alarm.” Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 5.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they do not
distinguish the claimed confirmation of an alarm from the alarm details of
Nixon. The Specification discloses that when alarm generator “AG1 300
polls [alarm server] AS 100 for possible alarm messages . . . AS1 100 sends
the corresponding alarm message A1 over to AG1 300 . . . , which confirms
the message at AS1 100.” Spec. ¶ 84, Fig. 3. Although recitation [4] recites
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

9

that information is forwarded to an alarm generator along with confirmation
of the alarm, we are unable to find a disclosure in the Specification
supporting an interpretation where the confirmation of the alarm forwarded
to the alarm generator is separate from the message itself. Thus, a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the claimed “confirmation of the alarm”
encompasses an alarm message.
Nixon broadly teaches that, using a mobile device (i.e., an alarm
generator), a “user may view the details of the alarm, such as the alarm
name, description, time and date of the alarm, time to respond, functional
classification, trends associated with the process value that triggered the
alarm, recommended corrective actions, etc.” Nixon ¶ 87. Thus, like the
alarm server disclosed and claimed, Nixon’s system provides an alarm,
including the details of the alarm, to an alarm generator. This falls within a
broad but reasonable interpretation of forwarding alarm details along with
confirmation of the alarm. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Nixon teaches or suggests a control module configured to [4] “forward it to
the alarm generator with confirmation of the alarm.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 5.
We note that the use of the pronoun “it” in recitation [4] may be
ambiguous. Thus, we recommend that in the event of further prosecution
Appellant and the Examiner ensure claim 5 is definite.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and
bracketing added).
6. An alarm server device in accordance with claim 1, wherein
the control module is configured to [5] trigger a local alarm at
the alarm server after confirmation of the presence of an alarm
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

10

to the alarm generator if the alarm generator fails to confirm
an acknowledgment of a presence of an alarm by a user after a
predefined time.
Appeal Br. 26–27, Claims App.
In rejecting claim 6 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Day’s
issuance of a local alarm if an acknowledgement message is not received
teaches or suggest modifying Nixon’s system to include a control module
configured to [5] “trigger a local alarm at the alarm server after confirmation
of the presence of an alarm to the alarm generator if the alarm generator fails
to confirm an acknowledgment of a presence of an alarm by a user after a
predefined time.” Final Act. 6 (citing Nixon ¶¶ 99, 110; Day ¶ 35); Ans. 14–
15. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Nixon’s mobile server
178 does not have a local alarm and Day’s pump 12 (i.e., where a local
alarm is issued) “is not equivalent to an alarm server.” Appeal Br. 21; Reply
Br. 5–6.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because Appellant attacks
Nixon and Day individually even though the Examiner relies on their
combined teachings and suggestions. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. In particular,
the Examiner relies on Nixon to teach the claimed alarm server (Final Act. 6
(citing Nixon ¶¶ 99, 110)) and on Day to teach or suggest a local alarm
triggered if acknowledgment of a presence of an alarm by a user is not
received after a predefined time (Final Act. 6 (citing Day ¶ 35)). This
modification to Nixon’s mobile server 178—providing a backup alarm when
an alarm is not acknowledged within a predetermined time (Day ¶ 35)—
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill as a way of limiting
the risk that conditions that “may require urgent attention” to “avoid system
failure, . . . injury or damage, as well as significant . . . downtime” are not
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

11

left unaddressed for too long (Nixon ¶ 110 (cited in Final Act. 6)).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Nixon and
Day teaches or suggests recitation [5].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 6.
Claim 26
Claim 26 is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and
bracketing added).
26. A method for operating an alarm server, the method
comprising the steps of:
receiving an alarm indication and alarm information relating to
the alarm indication from an alarm source, the alarm indication
indicating an alarm condition at the alarm source;
measuring time starting from said receiving of the alarm signal;
storing the alarm indication and the alarm information in the
alarm server;
[6] monitoring a first alarm generator for an alarm request;
delivering the alarm indication and the alarm information to the
first alarm generator upon receiving the alarm request;
monitoring the first alarm generator for acknowledgment of the
alarm notification;
sending the alarm indication to a second alarm generator when
the time measured during said measuring step exceeds a
predetermined time and no acknowledgment is received from
the first alarm generator.
Appeal Br. 27, Claims App.
The Examiner reject method claim 26 for reasons similar to the
Examiner’s rejection of alarm server device claim 1. Final Act. 6. We do not
find Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 26 persuasive to the extent
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

12

they are similar to Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, discussed
above.
We note that in rejecting claim 26, the Examiner finds that Nixon’s
sending of requested notifications or alarms to a remote computing device
when corresponding criteria are met teaches or suggests [6] “monitoring a
first alarm generator for an alarm request.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing, e.g.,
Nixon ¶ 110); Ans. 4–5. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because
although Nixon discloses that mobile server 178 sends data to remote
computing devices, “that data is sent according to [a] data list that is stored
on the mobile server 178.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because even if Nixon’s
criteria for requested notifications or alarms are stored on mobile server 178,
the criteria are set by a user of a remote computing device (i.e., an alarm
generator). Nixon ¶ 110. Claim 26 does not preclude storing an alarm
request that is received (e.g., that is set by the user of a remote computing
device). Moreover, Nixon emphasizes that “mobile server 178 is able to send
the requested notifications or alarms to the remote computing device
substantially in real time” and that this is important because conditions may
require “urgent attention . . . to avoid system failure, . . . injury or death,
[and] significant . . . downtime.” Id. Thus, Nixon’s criteria for requested
notifications or alarms teaches or suggests an alarm request to both store for
use with respect to future alarms and use immediately for pending alarms
(possibly requiring urgent attention) as well. Ans. 4–5 (citing Nixon ¶ 110).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Nixon teaches or suggests
recitation [6].
Appeal 2021-003631
Application 16/033,778

13

Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 26.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6,
20, 21, 26
103 Nixon, Day 1, 2, 4–6, 20, 21, 26
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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