Ex Parte Ceglia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2018

13421483 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/421,483 03/15/2012 Kenneth Paul Ceglia
144467 7590 05/14/2018
Mintz Levin/GE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
248424-1 I
047079-301F01 U
EXAMINER
3642
One Financial Center CHU, GABRIELL
Boston, MA 02111
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2018 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):
ipdocketingbos@mintz.com
GPO.mail@GE.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH PAUL CEGLIA, SCOTT TERRELL WILLIAMS,
CHARLES TERRANCE HATCH, and DAVID MICHAEL ROBERTSON
Appeal2017-006610
Application 13/421,483 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-006610
Application 13/421,483
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to monitoring
operation of system assets and displaying images representative of the
system assets, including indications of alarm states. (Abstract.) Independent
claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A device for use in monitoring operation of a plurality of
system assets, said device comprising:
a storage device configured to store a model of a plurality
of system assets; and
a processor coupled to said storage device, said processor
configured to:
receive data representative of a status of the plurality of
system assets;
display, in a first display state, a plurality of asset images
on a display using the model, wherein the plurality of asset
images are representative of the plurality of system assets;
display, in a second display state, a first asset image of the
plurality of asset images within the display upon a determination
that a first system asset represented by the first asset image is in
an alarm state, wherein displaying the first asset image in the
second display state causes the first asset image to be emphasized
with respect to the display of the plurality of asset images in the
first display state;
display, in a third display state, the remaining asset images
of the plurality of asset images within the display upon a
determination that the system assets represented by the
remaining asset images are not in an alarm state, wherein
displaying the remaining asset images in the third display state
causes the remaining asset images to be de-emphasized with
respect to the display of the plurality of asset images in first
display state;
hide, in a fourth display state, a second asset image by
obscuring the second asset image with a third asset image,
2
Appeal2017-006610
Application 13/421,483
wherein the third asset image compnses an image of a
machinery; and
display in a fifth display state, the second asset image by
de-emphasizing the third asset image upon a determination that
a second system asset represented by the second asset image is
in the alarm state, wherein the plurality of asset images comprise
at least one of a machine image.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schleiss et al. (US 2010/0123594 Al, pub. May 20, 2010)
(hereinafter "Schleiss"), Bonura et al. (US 2004/0090467 Al, pub. May 13,
2004) (hereinafter "Bonura"), and Agrawala et al. (US 2005/0248560 Al,
pub. Nov. 10, 2005) (hereinafter "Agrawala"). (Final Act. 2-10.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Schleiss,
Bonura, and Agrawala teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitations:
hide, in a fourth display state, a second asset image by
obscuring the second asset image with a third asset image,
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants' and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 18, 2016) (hereinafter,
"App. Br."); the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 16, 2017) (hereinafter, "Reply Br.");
the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 29, 2016) (hereinafter, "Final Act.");
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 18, 2017) (hereinafter, "Ans.") for
the respective details.
3
Appeal2017-006610
Application 13/421,483
wherein the third asset image comprises an image of a
machinery; and
display in a fifth display state, the second asset image by
de-emphasizing the third asset image upon a determination that
a second system asset represented by the second asset image is
in the alarm state, wherein the plurality of asset images
comprise at least one of a machine image;
and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 8 and 15. (App. Br.
7-11.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-10) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 10-12.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by
the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding Schleiss, Bonura, and Agrawala teach or suggest the
limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Schleiss of an
electronic process plant display that collects process plant data and
highlights a portion of the display subject to an alarm condition and obscures
the portions not subject to an alarm condition. (Final Act. 2--4; Schleiss
Abstract, Figs. 3-5, i-fi-129-30.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure
in Bonura of gradually increasing the translucency of a displayed window in
a graphical user interface when the window contents remain unchanged,
allowing user input to underlying objects. (Final Act. 4---6; Bonura Abstract,
Fig. 6.)
4
Appeal2017-006610
Application 13/421,483
Appellants argue Schleiss is "completely silent as to ... hiding an
asset image by obscuring the asset image with another asset image," and as
to "displaying the previously hidden asset image by de-emphasizing the
asset image that was obscuring the previously hidden asset image." (App.
Br. 9.) Appellants also argue the Examiner's reliance on Bonura is in error
because: "[a] window is not equivalent to an asset image because the asset
image is a representation of an asset, such as a machine"; that "[i]t simply
cannot be said that varying OS window translucency is equivalent to [the
claimed display states]"; and that the "'window overlap' problem" of
Bonura is insufficient motivation for the Examiner's combination. (App. Br.
9-10.)
These arguments are unpersuasive as arguing the references
individually, whereas the Examiner's rejection is based upon the teachings
of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is whether the combination
of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F .2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, "[t]he test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. "Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).
5
Appeal2017-006610
Application 13/421,483
Here the Examiner relies on Schleiss for the disclosure of
emphasizing and deemphasizing asset images according to alarm states, and
relies on Bonura for the disclosure of de-emphasizing one image to allow
access to an underlying image, which is readily applicable to the electronic
process plant display system of Schleiss. As the Examiner finds: "Schleiss
shows three dimensional machinery represented in two dimensions, and so
parts may overlap. Similarly, where there are layered, overlapping elements
in an interface, Bonura discloses that one of those parts may be rendered
translucent for ease of observation." (Ans. 10.)
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in so relying on this
combination. Appellants do not point to any evidence of record that the
resulting combination would be "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior
art." Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed
subject matter exemplifies the principle that "[t ]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
6
Appeal2017-006610
Application 13/421,483
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 over Schleiss, Bonura, and
Agrawala. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-7, 9-14,
and 16-20 over Schleiss, Bonura, and Agrawala, which rejections are not
argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7