Ex Parte Engelstad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 9, 2016

12734832 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121734,832 05/26/2010 164 7590 08/11/2016 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. THE KINNEY & LANGE BUILDING 312 SOUTH THIRD STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Loren Michael Engelstad 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. E252.12-0104 7724 EXAMINER NGUYEN,NAMV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2016 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): uspatdocket@kinney.com smkomarec@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LOREN MICHAEL ENGELSTAD, DOUGLAS WAYNE ARNTSON, JASON HAROLD RUD, CLARENCE EDWARD HOLMSTADT, RANDY KENNETH PASCHKE, SERGEY VIKTOROVICH ASMOLOV, and YURY NICKOLAEVICH KUZNETSOV Appeal 2015-000111 1 Application 12/734,832 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-11, 23-29, and 3 8-53. Br. 3. Claims 12-22 and 30-37 have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Rosemount Inc., a subsidiary of Emerson Electric Company. Br. 2. Appeal2015-000111 Application 12/734,832 Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for simultaneously transmitting analog sensor signals and digital communications from a sensor assembly (200) to a temperature process transmitter (300) over the same sensor connection wires (226). Spec. i-fi-135- 40, Figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A sensor assembly for use with a process transmitter, the sensor assembly comprising: an analog sensing element; sensor connection wires for connecting the analog sensing element to the process transmitter to provide an analog sensor signal from the analog sensing element to the process transmitter; memory circuitry for storing information related to the sensor assembly; and interface circuitry connected to the sensor connection wires to provide digital communication between the memory circuitry and the process transmitter over the sensor connection wires, wherein the interface circuitry is configured to allow the analog sensor signal and the digital communication to be provided at the same time over the sensor connection wires. Hodson Anderson Lindmueller Shears Prior Art Relied Upon us 5,162,725 us 5,245,333 US 2006/0254911 Al US 7 ,978,081 B2 2 Nov. 10, 1992 Sept. 14, 1993 Nov. 16, 2006 July 12, 2011 Appeal2015-000111 Application 12/734,832 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 23-25, 41, 42, 46, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hodson and Anderson. Claims 3-5 and 43--45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hodson, Anderson, and Lindmueller. Claims 7-10, 26-29, 38--40, 47-50, 52, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hodson, Anderson, and Shears. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 11-15.2 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as indicated otherwise, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2-5; Final Act. 2-9. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 13, 2014), and the Answer (mailed July 10, 2014) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 3 Appeal2015-000111 Application 12/734,832 Appellants argue that the combination of Hodson and Anderson does not teach or suggest an "interface circuitry configured to allow an analog sensor signal and digital communication to be provided at the same time over sensor connection wires," as recited in independent claim 1. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellants argue Anderson's disclosure of a transmitter signal output does not teach or suggest the sensor connection wires because the signal output connects the transmitter to an external controller, as opposed to an analog sensor. Br. 13. According to Appellants, Anderson teaches generating digital and analog outputs solely at the process transmitter output (68), and not on the sensor connection wire (line between item 60 and 62) for connecting an analog sensing element ( 60) to a process transmitter. Id. This argument is not persuasive. At the outset, we note Appellants' argument amounts to an individual attack against the references by focusing solely on Anderson's teachings, as opposed to the combination of teachings in Hodson and Anderson proffered by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Anderson's disclosure of a D/ A converter for transmitting an analog sensor signal ( 54) and digital signals (7 4, 7 6) to an external circuit ( 59) via a single transmitter signal output ( 68) would complement Hodson' s disclosure of a locking connector (22) for interfacing a sensing probe (32) with a transmitter (14) via sensor connecting wires (20) carrying both sensor signals and information related to the sensor assembly. Ans. 3--4 (citing Anderson Fig. 4 Appeal2015-000111 Application 12/734,832 1; Hodson Fig. 1 ). Consequently, the Examiner correctly finds that the proposed combination would predictably result in a minimum number of signal lines for simultaneously communicating analog and digital data between the two devices. Id. at 4. Although Anderson discloses providing the analog sensor information along with the digital communication signals to an external circuit, as opposed to a transmitter, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a simple substitution of Anderson's external circuit with Hodson' s transmitter would predictably result in the simultaneous transmission of such signals between the sensor circuit and the transmitter circuit via the same sensor connection wires. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, we concur with the Examiner that the combination of Hodson and Anderson teaches the disputed limitations. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellants have not provided arguments or evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1. It therefore follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1. Regarding claims 2-11, 23-29, and 38-53, because Appellants reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-11, 23-29, and 38-53 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 5 Appeal2015-000111 Application 12/734,832 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11, 23-29, and 38- 53. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6