Dirk Hammerschmidt

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2019

13779900 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2019)

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.
13/779,900 02/28/2013 Dirk Hammerschmidt INFAP352US
(2012P51703US)
6928
51092 7590 12/16/2019
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
CASEY, LIAM R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2019 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DIRK HAMMERSCHMIDT

Appeal 2019-000440
Application 13/779,900
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 7, and 10–24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The following rejections are presented for appeal:
I. Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 14–16, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(a) as anticipated by Orion (US 2012/0119568 A1, publ. May 17, 2012).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Infineon
Technologies AG. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2019-000440
Application 13/779,900

2
II. Claims 3 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Orion and Huot (US 2011/0124303 A1, publ. May
26, 2011).
III. Claims 6, 11, 17, 18, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orion.
IV. Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Orion and Huang (US 2005/0116745 A1, publ. June 2,
2005).
V. Claims 13 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination Orion and Filter Capacitor (Filter
Capacitor-Explained (accessed December 24, 2016)
https://web.archive.org/web/20121114213456/http://www.learningaboutelec
tronics.com/...).
VI. Claims 19 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination Orion and Pickerd (US 2007/0041512
A1, publ. Feb. 22, 2007).
Appellant’s invention relates to a measurement system that includes
sensors having emulated line adaptation. The sensors can be utilized in
various control systems that perform automotive functions. (Spec. ¶¶ 1, 11.)
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from
Appellant’s Brief below:
1. A measurement system comprising:
a signal bus;
an electronic control circuit coupled to the signal bus;
and
at least one sensor with an emulated line adaptation
circuit coupled to the signal bus, the emulated line adaptation
circuit configured to adapt current consumption associated with
the signal bus according to an adaptation amount for a selected
Appeal 2019-000440
Application 13/779,900

3
impedance and a selected frequency range to provide the
selected impedance;
wherein the line adaptation circuit comprises a
processing circuit, a supply measurement circuit and an
emulated sensor filter circuit, wherein the emulated sensor filter
circuit is configured to filter a supply voltage according to the
selected impedance and the selected frequency range, the
supply measurement circuit is configured to measure the
filtered supply voltage and the processing circuit is configured
to generate the adaptation amount based on the measured
filtered supply voltage.

OPINION
Anticipation Rejection
We limit our discussion to independent claims 1, 14, and 21. Claims
1, 2, 7, 12, 14–16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as
anticipated by Orion.
The Examiner finds Orion discloses a sensor with an emulated line
adaptation circuit coupled to a signal bus as required by the independent
claims. The Examiner specifically states:
Orion discloses a measurement system comprising:
a signal bus (wire communication link 10, Fig. 1);
an electronic control circuit(control unit 6, Fig. 1 meets
the limitation; control member 72, Fig. 6 and para. [0089])
coupled to the signal bus; and
at least one sensor with emulated line adaptation circuit
coupled to the signal bus (control member 72 includes means
for measuring, Fig. 6 and para. [0087]; means 34, 36, 42 for
adapting the input impedance, Abstract and Fig. 1), the
emulated line adaptation circuit configured to adapt
current consumption associated with the signal bus (paras.
[0061]-[0064]) according to an adaptation amount for a selected
impedance (drives the current generator 34 ... a variable input
current Ie ... input voltage Ve divided by the value of the
characteristic line impedance Z0, para. [0089]) and a selected
Appeal 2019-000440
Application 13/779,900

4
frequency range (predetermined range of frequencies, para.
[0009] and [0070]) to provide the selected impedance
(match the input impedance Ze to the characteristic line
impedance Z0, para. [0070]); the current consumption
is associated with the signal bus because it is derived from the
input current from the signal bus.
“Adaptation amount” is a non-specific term and could be
the value of the impedance itself Z0 or the quotient of the input
voltage and impedance, among other possibilities. However, in
view of the limitations below, it is best understood to be the
quotient of input voltage and characteristic line impedance.
wherein the line adaptation circuit comprises a
processing circuit (control member 72, Fig. 6 and paras. [0087]
and [0089]), a supply measurement circuit (means for
measuring the intermediate voltage Vint1, para. [0087]), and an
emulated sensor filter circuit (filtering capacitor C1, Figs. 2, 6,
and para. [0049]), wherein the emulated sensor filter circuit is
configured to filter a supply voltage (paras. [0049], [0087], and
[0089]) according to the selected impedance and the selected
frequency range (matching band is notably a function of the
value of the filtering capacitor C1, para. [0070]), the supply
measurement circuit is configured to measure the filtered
supply voltage (control member 72 measures the variations
of this input voltage Ve via the means for measuring the voltage
Vint, para. [0089]) and the processing circuit is configured to
generated the adaptation amount based on the measured filtered
supply voltage (control member 72 then drives the current
generator 34 ... a variable input current Ie... input voltage Ve
divided by the value of the characteristic line impedance Z0,
para. [0089]). The matching band is the frequency range in
accordance with the selected impedance and it is a function of
the value of the capacitor, so the filtering is in accordance with
both impedance and frequency range. The control member must
generate the adaptation amount in order to drive the current
generator using it, so it inherently is or includes a processing
circuit as claimed.
(Final Act. 4–5 (emphasis omitted).)

Appeal 2019-000440
Application 13/779,900

5
Appellant argues “Orion does not teach an at least one sensor with an
emulated line adaptation circuit having a line adaptation circuit configured
to adapt current consumption of a signal bus according to an adaptation
amount to provide the selected impedance as in claim 1.” (Appeal Br. 4
(emphasis omitted).) Appellant argues the current generator 34 modifies the
variable load 36, not the consumption associated with the signal bus, and the
Examiner has failed to explain how the control member 72 maintains the
input impedance with the line impedance. (Reply Br. 4.)
The Examiner has failed to identify where Orion teaches an electronic
control circuit coupled to the signal bus and at least one sensor with an
emulated line adaptation circuit coupled to the signal bus as required by the
claimed invention. The independent claims require at least one sensor to
have an emulated line adaptation circuit configured to adapt current
consumption for a selected impedance. However, Orion teaches a coupling
system that has a means to adapt an input impedance matched to the
characteristic line impedance. (Orion ¶ 111).
Further, Orion discloses an energy recovery device 24 within a device
2 for controlling an electronic switch 4. (Fig. 1). The energy recovery device
24 (Fig. 6) consumes current to recover energy. (Orion ¶¶ 42, 61). The
energy recovery device 24 includes a rectifier 32, a current source 34, and a
load 36. The energy recovery device 24 receives an input current Ie of
constant intensity and delivers an output current I1 of variable intensity to
the control unit 6. (Orion ¶ 67). Thus, the energy recovery device 24 does
not modify the current according to an adaptation amount, the energy
recovery device 24 does not modify the current/intensity at the input current
Ie. (Orion ¶ 61).
Appeal 2019-000440
Application 13/779,900

6
The energy recovery device 24 also includes rectifier 32. However,
the rectifier 32 of Orion does not modify the intensity of the current crossing
it, so that the intensity of the current circulating through its output terminal
48 is equal to the intensity of the first current I1 circulating through its input
terminals 28. (Orion ¶ 62).
The Examiner has also improperly relied on control member 72 to
teach multiple elements of the claimed invention. Specifically, the Examiner
relies on control member 72 to meet the claim requirement for a sensor, a
means for measuring, a processing circuit, and a supply measurement circuit.
(Ans. 2; Final Act. 4.) Consequently, the Examiner has relied on a single
component to meet multiple components of the claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented by Appellant, the
Examiner has failed to establish that Orion anticipates the subject matter of
independent claims 1, 14 and 21 and dependent claims 2, 7, 12, 15, 16, and
22.
Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17–20, 23, and 24 as
obvious over Orion in combination with additional prior art references. We
did not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 21
for the reasons presented by Appellant and given above. We, likewise, do
not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 10,
11, 13, 17–20, 23, and 24, since these rejections are premised on the
Examiner’s misinterpretation of Orion. We need not reach whether the
Examiner’s reliance on other references in addition to Orion for the rejection
of the dependent claims was supported by the evidence of record. The
Appeal 2019-000440
Application 13/779,900

7
Examiner cited the additional references to address limitations different from
independent claims 1, 14, and 21.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 12,
14–16, 21, 22
102(a) Orion  1, 2, 7, 12,
14–16, 21,
22
3, 4 103(a) Orion, Huot  3, 4
6, 11, 17, 18,
24
103(a) Orion 6, 11, 17,
18, 24
10 103(a) Orion, Huang 10
13, 20 103(a) Orion, Filter
Capacitor
13, 20
19, 23 103(a) Orion, Pickerd  19, 23
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 7,
10–24

REVERSED