Endress + Hauser Conducta Gesellschaft für Mess- und Regeltechnik mbH + Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2021

2020004327 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 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.
13/934,517 07/03/2013 Andrea Reinhold CD0509-US 9526
140216 7590 05/04/2021
Endress+Hauser, Inc.
PatServe US
2350 Endress Place
Greenwood, IN 46143
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2021 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):
chris.powers@endress.com
lisa.harden@endress.com
patserve.ush@endress.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREA REINHOLD and STEFANIE HORN
Appeal 2020-004327
Application 13/934,517
Technology Center 2800
BEFORE BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13, 17–19, 22–26, and 28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Endress + Hauser
Conducta Gessellschaft Fur Mess- und Regeltechnik MBH + Co. KG.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004327
Application 13/934,517

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 13 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
13. An arrangement for calibrating at least two sensors in
parallel, comprising:
at least two sensors, each including a memory therein;
a data processing unit embodied to perform calibrations of
the at least two sensors in parallel and independently of one
another via a calibration routine, the data processing unit
including an interface, via which the at least two sensors are
connected via separate transmission lines for transmission of
data, and a processor, which is in communication with the
interface for processing input and output signals, wherein each
sensor connected with the data processing unit is associated with
its own measurement channel; and
an operating program for the at least two sensors, the
operating program associated with said data processing unit and
executable by the processor, wherein the operating program
includes the calibration routine and is configured to store
currently ascertained calibration data for each of the at least two
sensors in each corresponding memory and to operate the
measurement channels associated with the sensors in parallel and
independently of one another,
wherein the operating program is instantiable multiple
times and each instance of the operating program is associated
uniquely with one of the sensors connected to said data
processing unit and is executable by the processor in parallel with
and independently of other instances such that the sensors are
calibrated in parallel and independently of one another,
wherein said data processing unit is a measurement
transmitter for a multisensor system, the measurement
transmitter configured to convert measurement signals from the
at least two sensors into corresponding measured values using
the calibration routine, to perform temperature compensation of
the corresponding measured values, and to access each memory
for executing the operating program, and
Appeal 2020-004327
Application 13/934,517

3
wherein the calibration routine, executable by the
processor of the measurement transmitter, includes determining
for each sensor when a stable measured value of each
corresponding measured value is attained based on
predetermined stability criteria, whereupon each stable measured
value is stored temporarily, adapting calibration parameters of
the sensors based on the stable measured value stored
temporarily by the calibration routine, and storing the adapted
calibration parameters in the corresponding memories of the
sensors.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
DASGIP mbH, cellferm-pro User Manual (January 2000) (“DASGIP”).
iSenseTM, ISM Asset Suite Getting Started Guide, Mettler Toledo, (2010).
DASGIP Tech., Combining Small Scale Systems and Bioreactors with
Parallel Cultivation and Software Intelligence, BioProcess Int’l
(2005)(“DASGIP II”).
REJECTION
Claims 13, 17–19, 22–26, and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DASGIP in view of iSense and
DASGIP II.
OPINION
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, an arrangement for calibrating at least two
sensors in parallel, including a data processing unit that performs calibrations
of the at least two sensors in parallel and independently of one another via a
calibration routine.
The Examiner’s statement of the rejection is set forth on pages 2–11
of the Final Office Action. Therein, the Examiner makes findings with
Appeal 2020-004327
Application 13/934,517

4
regard to DASGIP. Final Act. 2–4. It is the Examiner’s position that
DASGIP teaches an operating program wherein the sensors are calibrated
independently and in parallel as recited in the claim 13. Appellant disputes
this position for the reasons presented on pages 8–10 of the Appeal Brief and
on page 2 of the Reply Brief.
The Examiner’s response is set forth on page 11 of the Answer.
Therein, the Examiner states that DASGIP teaches that a user can specify the
electrodes to be calibrated and hence this is a teaching that the electrodes are
calibrated independently from the ones that are not calibrated. However, it
appears the Examiner misses the point being made by Appellant which is
that DASGIP teaches displaying a sequence of sensors calibrated, showing
each one at a time, thus not in parallel. DASGIP, p. 71. Appeal Br. 8. On
page 2 of the Reply Brief, Appellant further points out that DASGIP requires
a user to select a sequence of electrodes to be calibrated. DASGIP, p. 22.
Thus, Appellant reiterates that the calibration conducted in DASGIP of one
electrode is not independent of the others to be calibrated. Reply Br. 2. In
other words, because a sequence is involved, necessarily the calibration
cannot be independent, but in sequence (which involves a dependency upon
each other).
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection (the Examiner does not
rely upon the other applied references to cure the stated deficiencies of
DASGIP).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
Appeal 2020-004327
Application 13/934,517

5
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13, 17–19,
22–26, 28
103(a) DASGIP, iSense,
DASGIP II
13, 17–19,
22–26, 28
REVERSED