Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7987002 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 7987002 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) as of the patent's priority date of November 26, 2003. A POSITA in this field would typically be an engineer or technician with experience in distributed control systems, embedded systems, communication protocols (e.g., CAN, USB, Bluetooth), and measurement/calibration tools for automotive or industrial applications.

The patent itself identifies International Application PCT/SE2003/01219, published as WO 2004/015945 A1 (priority date July 16, 2003), as "previous work" and states that US7987002 "can be considered to be a further development of that previous work." This makes WO 2004/015945 A1 a primary and highly relevant piece of prior art.

Combination 1: WO 2004/015945 A1 in view of known Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) Simulation Techniques and the common practice of distributing tasks between computing devices (e.g., PC and PDA).

Rationale for Combination 1:

WO 2004/015945 A1, as the inventor's own "previous work" on which US7987002 is a "further development," is highly likely to disclose the core architecture described in US7987002's summary. This core includes:

• A first unit (e.g., an interface unit or measurement module) connected to a distributed control system operating with a first protocol (e.g., CAN).
• This first unit obtains and/or provides information compatible with the first protocol.
• The first unit includes inputs for analog/digital measurement signals and outputs for analog/digital output signals.
• The first unit transforms information from the first protocol to a second protocol for a tool arrangement (e.g., a PC or PDA).
• The tool arrangement works with the second protocol, enabling readings and/or changes in the first protocol to be implemented via the second protocol.

Obviousness of Claim 1 (Apparatus)

Claim 1 focuses on a processor device providing simulated measurement signals and control signals to the distributed control system via an interface unit for simulation purposes.

1. Processor device communicating with an interface unit using a first protocol, and the interface unit communicating with a distributed control system using a second protocol: This fundamental architecture is understood to be disclosed by WO 2004/015945 A1, which describes a multi-protocol communication system for measurement and control within distributed control systems.
2. Processor device configured to provide simulated measurement signals and control signals to replace actual input data and control signals in the distributed control system: By the priority date of November 2003, Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) simulation was a well-established technique for testing electronic control units (ECUs) and distributed control systems, especially in automotive and industrial contexts. HIL systems precisely involve a processor (often part of a testbed) generating simulated sensor inputs and receiving control outputs, which are then fed back as simulated environmental conditions. "2003: DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION SYSTEMS" confirms that the integration of various simulators into a single, distributed simulation environment was an important motivation by 2003. A POSITA would have been motivated to integrate HIL simulation capabilities into the measurement and analysis system described in WO 2004/015945 A1 to enable comprehensive and repeatable testing and validation of the distributed control system in a controlled environment.
3. Sending simulated signals using the second protocol via the interface unit and the first protocol: This is the logical application of the HIL simulation concept within the existing multi-protocol architecture taught by WO 2004/015945 A1. The simulated signals would simply follow the established communication paths to interact with the distributed control system.

Obviousness of Claim 15 (Monitoring System) and Claim 25 (Method)

Claims 15 and 25 introduce the concept of a plurality of monitoring units, including at least one "complex monitoring unit" (e.g., a PC) and at least one "basic monitoring unit" (e.g., a PDA), where the complex unit generates programmatic instructions for the basic unit to collect a subset of data.

1. Monitoring units communicating with an interface unit using a first protocol, connected to a distributed control system receiving data via a second protocol: As with Claim 1, this underlying system architecture is disclosed by WO 2004/015945 A1.
2. Plurality of monitoring units comprising complex and basic monitoring units: US7987002 itself explicitly describes the varying capabilities of a PC (complex) versus a PDA (basic) and the expediency of allocating processor-intensive tasks to the PC and reducing the tool's capacity for a PDA version.
3. Complex monitoring unit generating programmatic instructions for the basic monitoring unit, and the basic unit receiving/executing them to collect a subset of data: The patent further explains that the PC version can be used as a "programming tool" for the PDA version, where "After it has been determined in the PC which tasks are to be resolved and how the results are to be displayed, a configuration file is generated which is then downloaded to the PDA." This directly describes a complex unit (PC) creating configuration or programmatic instructions that a basic unit (PDA) would then execute to collect specific data. A POSITA would be motivated to adopt such an approach to leverage the strengths of both device types: the PC for sophisticated analysis and configuration, and the PDA for portable, streamlined, and pre-configured data collection and diagnostics in the field. This improves efficiency and practical utility for technicians.

Obviousness of Specific Protocol-Related Features

• CAN Calibration Protocol (CCP) (Claim 6): The use of CCP for requesting measurement signals is explicitly mentioned in the patent. CCP 2.1 was released in February 1999, well before the priority date. It was a known standard for calibration and data acquisition from ECUs in CAN-based systems, enabling read/write access to ECU memory and synchronous/event-driven data acquisition. Therefore, a POSITA designing a measurement system for a CAN-based distributed control system would find it obvious to use CCP for requesting measurement signals.
• Other Protocols (Claims 3, 4, 5, 13, 14): The patent references standard protocols like USB, Bluetooth, PCMCIA, TCP/IP, J1939, TTCAN, and CanKingdom. These were widely known and used in their respective domains by 2003. For instance, USB and PCMCIA were standard for connecting PC peripherals, and Bluetooth was known for short-range wireless communication, often using USB or UART as underlying transport layers. US 2003/0050009 A1 also discusses Bluetooth for secure data exchange and pairing. The choice of such known protocols for the communication links would have been an obvious engineering choice for a POSITA, depending on the specific application requirements.

In conclusion, the combination of WO 2004/015945 A1 (for the foundational system architecture) with the well-known principles of HIL simulation and the established practice of distributing complex and simpler tasks between computing devices like PCs and PDAs would render the claims of US7987002 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art by November 26, 2003. The specific protocol choices further represent obvious implementations of known technologies.