B&R INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2021

2020004027 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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.
15/281,633 09/30/2016 Franz KAUFLEITNER P51038 6586
7055 7590 10/21/2021
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
AHMED, ISTIAQUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2021 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANZ KAUFLEITNER, MIODRAG VESELIC, and
WALTER BURGSTALLER

Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 19–25 and 27–43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from
the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 B&R
Industrial Automation GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 19–25 and 27–43 as follows:
1. Claims 19–21, 23–25, 32, 33, and 37–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Scheiber et al. (US 2010/0127158 A1, published May 27,
2010) (“Scheiber”), Weddingfeld et al. (US 2011/0098830 A1, published
Apr. 28, 2011) (“Weddingfeld”), and Bouse et al. (US 2004/0019461 A1,
published Jan. 29, 2004) (“Bouse”). Final Act. 5.
2. Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Scheiber,
Weddingfeld, Bouse, and Milbrath et al. (US 6,166,371, issued Dec. 26,
2000) (“Milbrath”). Final Act. 16.
3. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Scheiber,
Weddingfeld, Bouse, and Tino (US 5,280,622, issued Jan. 18, 1994)
(“Tino”) Final Act. 17.
4. Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Scheiber,
Weddingfeld, Bouse, and Beck et al. (US 2005/0205763 A1, published Sept.
22, 2005) (“Beck”). Final Act. 17–18.
5. Claims 29–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Scheiber, Weddingfeld, Bouse, and Ludolf et al. (DE 44 22 497 A1,
published Jan. 4, 1996) (machine translation) (“Ludolf”). Final Act. 19.
6. Claims 34, 35, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Scheiber, Weddingfeld, Bouse, and PROFIsafe (PROFIBUS
Nutzerorganisation e.V., PROFIsafe System Description – Technology and
Application 1–19 (2010)). Final Act. 20–21.
7. Claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Scheiber,
Weddingfeld, Bouse, and Grabinger et al. (DE 10 2005 030 829 A1, pub.
Jan. 11, 2007) (machine translation) (“Grabinger”). Final Act. 23.
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

3
8. Claims 42 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Scheiber, Weddingfeld, Bouse, and Tino. Final Act. 24.
There are three independent claims, claim 19, 37, and 43. The
independent claims each recite similar limitations. Appellant provides
substantially the same arguments for each of the independent claims.
Consequently, claim 19 is selected as representative. The claim is copied
below. It is annotated with bracketed numbers for reference to the specific
limitations in the claim.
19. A method for automated control of at least one machine
component located in a plant and operating in a safety area
monitored by at least one safety sensor, the method comprising:
[1] connecting an automation component, via a common
secure bus connection, to each of:
[1a] the at least one machine component; and
[1b] the at least one safety sensor;
[2] transmitting, via the common secure bus connection,
control commands from the automation component to the at least
one machine component;
[3] receiving feedback data, via the common secure bus
connection, from the at least one machine component to the
automation component;
[4] controlling, via the automation component, the at least
one machine component;
[5] detecting a hazardous situation based on data
transmitted from the at least one safety sensor to the automation
component via the common secure bus connection; and
[6] causing, via the automation component, the at least one
machine component to perform a protective action when the
automation component ascertains a presence of the hazardous
situation,
[7] wherein the data transmitted from the at least one
safety sensor includes a measurement pattern,
[8] wherein the automation component has at its disposal
relevant parameter data required for controlling the at least one
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

4
machine component and the feedback data received from the at
least one machine component, and
[9] wherein the measurement pattern measured by the at
least one safety sensor is transmitted over the common secure
bus connection via a one-way communication interface that is
suitable only for transmitting data over the one-way
communication interface.

CLAIM 19
Claim 19 is directed to a method “for automated control of at least one
machine component located in a plant.” The machine is “operating in a
safety area monitored by at least one safety sensor.” The method has six
steps, which we have numbered [1] through [6] for reference throughout this
decision.
An “automation component” is connected to a “machine component”
and “safety sensor” in step [1] of the claim. Control commands are
transmitted from the automation component to the machine component in
step [2] of the claim. Feedback data from the machine component is received
by the automation component in the step [3] of the claim. Each of these steps
is recited in the claim to be “via [a] common secure bus connection,”
(emphasis added), that is, by the same bus connection.
The automation component is “controlling” the machine component
(step [4]) and “causing” the machine component “to perform a protective
action when the automation component ascertains a presence of the
hazardous situation” (step [6]) which is detected in step [5] of the claim via
the bus connection.
The Specification summarizes these steps in the claim as follows:
The invention relates to a method for automated control of a least
one machine component in a plant with an automation
component, the machine component being linked to an
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

5
automation component via a secure bus connection, the plant
having a safety area monitored by means of at least one safety
sensor and the machine component performing a protective
action if a hazardous situation detected by the safety sensor for
protection objects, in particular persons and/or valuables, arises.
Spec. 1:5–10.
Claim 19 further requires that [7] “the data transmitted from the at
least one safety sensor includes a measurement pattern” which is measured
by [9] the safety sensor over the bus connection “via a one-way
communication interface that is suitable only for transmitting data over the
one-way communication interface.” The Specification describes an example
of a “measurement pattern”:
In contrast to “compressed” sensor information based on object
recognition in the sensor, the measurement pattern contains
uncompressed measurement data which only contains the
information measured by the sensor and has not been linked with
other data or parameters. In this context, “uncompressed” is
understood to mean in particular data corresponding to the
measurement data of the sensor prior to undergoing an object
evaluation. The measurement pattern can constitute, for
example, the pixel information of a safety sensor such as a light
grid, essentially in its entirety. Uncompressed can also be
understood to mean data, the information content of which has
been reduced, such as when brightness values on the pixel level
measured by the sensor are reduced to a binary statement (e.g.,
light grid beam interrupted/free).
Spec. 3:18–27.
With respect to the one-way communication interface, Appellant did
not identify a specific example of such an interface in the Specification
(Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. 7:30–8:32 for support)).

2 “The safety sensor 3 features, in addition to the known sensor plant for
monitoring the safety area 4, a communication interface 10, via which the
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

6
The claim further recites that the automation component “has at its
disposal relevant parameter data required for controlling the at least one
machine component and the feedback data received from the at least one
machine component.”

Rejections
The Examiner found that Scheiber describes steps [4]–[6] of claim 19
of controlling the machine component, detecting a hazardous situation based
on [7] “measurement pattern” data from a safety sensor, and causing the
machine component to perform a protective action. Final Act. 5–6.
The Examiner found that Scheiber describes a bus connection
connecting the automation component to a safety sensor, but not the same
bus connecting the automation component to the machine component as in
step [1] of the claim. Final Act. 6. For this feature, the Examiner cited
Weddingfeld. Final Act. 6–7.
The Examiner further found that Weddingfeld transmits commands
from the automation component to the machine component by this same
common secure bus connection as in step [2] of the claim, and also uses one-
way communication as in [9] of the claim. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner found that Weddingfeld describes transmitting
“measurement pattern” data from the safety sensor to the automation

measurement pattern M recorded by the safety sensor 3 is transmitted to the
automation component 7 via the bus connection 6. If necessary, the
communication interface 10 can also comprise a function for receiving
control data for the sensor. However, this is not a requirement of the method
according to the invention. A one-way communication interface 10 that is
suitable only for transmitting data over the bus connection 6 can therefore
suffice.”
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

7
component by the same bus connection as in [7] and [9] of claim 19. Final
Act. 7.
The Examiner found that using a common secure bus connection to
connect the components in claim 19 was known in the art as established by
the teaching in Weddingfeld and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art. Final Act. 7–8.
The Examiner acknowledged that neither Scheiber nor Weddingfeld
describes the automation component “receiving feedback data” from the
machine component as in step [3] nor the “parameter data” as in [8] of claim
19. Final Act. 8. To meet these limitations, the Examiner relied upon the
teaching in Bouse. Id. The Examiner stated it would have been obvious to
incorporate Bouse’s teaching of feedback into the combination of Scheiber
and Weddingfeld “to issue control command based on the data” and to
“allow the controller to ensure that the machine is being operated as
desired.” Id. at 9.
To summarize, the Examiner found that Scheiber describes using a
safety sensor to detect hazardous situations in a plant, Weddingfeld
describes integrating the sensor, machine, and other components using a
“common” secure bus, and Bouse describes obtaining feedback from the
machine.

Weddingfeld
As discussed above, the Examiner found that Weddingfeld describes
[1] connecting the automation component to the machine component and
safety sensor by the same “common secure bus connection.” Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that Weddingfeld is deficient because Weddingfeld
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

8
“utilizes controls 28 which are connected to the outputs 22 as well as to the
so-called common bus 26.” Appeal Br. 10.
This argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. The
common bus configuration is illustrated in Figure 3 of Weddingfeld, which
is copied below. Annotations have been added to identify the specific
features of Weddingfeld’s system.

Figure 3, reproduced above, “shows a modular safety controller 10
with a control module 12 [shaded in purple] which has a safe control unit 14,
that is, for example, a microprocessor or another logic module.”
Weddingfeld ¶ 29. The serial communication connection 26 serves as the
claimed “common secure bus connection.” The “safe control unit 14” and
“control module 12” serve as the claimed “automation component.” The
sensors are 20a–2c. The sensor corresponds to the claimed “safety sensor.”
The actuators are robot 24a and press brake 24b. The actuator corresponds to
the claimed “machine component.” Each sensor and actuator pair is shown
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

9
as part of a connector module 16a–16d (16b is shaded in green) having
inputs and outputs to connect the sensor and actuator. Id. ¶ 30. The safety
controller 10 “has the task of providing a safe operation of the sensors 20a-c
and above all of the actuators 24a-b, that is to switch off actuators 24a-b in a
safety-directed manner.” Id.
¶ 31. Weddingfeld explains:
There is a serial communication connection 26 between the
control unit 14 and the inputs 18 or the outputs 22 which is
known as a backplane, which is in particular a bus and which can
be based on a serial standard, on a fieldbus standard such as IO-
Link, Profibus, CAN or also on a proprietary standard and can
additionally also be designed as failsafe.
Id. ¶ 35.
Appellant did not provide argument or evidence that serial
communication connection 26 is not a “common secure bus connection”
which provides the same functions recited in claim 19. Instead, Appellant’s
argument is that “control 28” is used to control the outputs. Appeal Br. 10.
Weddingfeld discloses “separate controller[s] 28” which “participate in the
bus communications.” Weddingfeld ¶ 35. There is no description of the
controllers 28 of carrying out the “bus connection” functions recited in [2]–
[6] and [9] of claim 19. Rather, Weddingfeld discloses that controllers 28
can “take over evaluation work or carry out distributed evaluations together
with the control unit 14 which can range from simple Boolean operations up
to complex evaluations, for instance of a three-dimensional safety camera.”
Id. ¶ 35. Therefore, while controllers 28 are described in Weddingfeld’s
system, they do not detract from the ability of the serial communication
connection 26 to serve as the claimed “common secure bus connection.”
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

10
Appellant also argues that Weddingfeld is deficient because it doesn’t
disclose feedback data. Appeal Br. 10. This argument is unpersuasive
because the Examiner did not rely on Weddingfeld for this feature, but
instead cited Bouse as describing feedback data. Final Act. 8.
Appellant also argues that neither Weddingfeld, Scheiber, nor Bouse
describes a “measurement pattern.” Appeal Br. 10–11. This argument is not
persuasive. The Examiner cited Scheiber paragraph 35 as describing the
“measurement pattern” recited in [7] and [9] of claim 19. Paragraphs 34 and
35 of Scheiber are copied below (emphasis added):
[0034] In a further configuration, the plurality of evaluation
circuits are connected to a common bus data connection, which
is connected to the control unit.
[0035] This configuration is advantageous for transmitting a
large number of detail information items from the individual
evaluation circuits to the control unit efficiently and cost-
effectively. Detail information items can contain, in particular,
indications about what transmitted beams were interrupted at
what point in time and for how long. On the basis of such
information items, the control unit can classify an object that
breaks through the transmitted beams, for example. The control
unit can thus realize a blanking function, which makes it possible
to transport specific objects, such as defined workpieces, through
the protective field of the sensor without the installation having
to be switched off.
The “beams” referenced in Weddingfeld ¶ 35 are a part of the safety
sensor. Weddingfeld ¶ 13.3 When the beams of the safety sensor are

3 “In accordance with another aspect, there is provided a light grid
arrangement for safeguarding a hazardous area, comprising a first and a
second sensor part arranged at a spatial distance from one another, each
sensor part having a plurality of transmitting elements for generating
transmitted beams and a plurality of receiving elements for receiving the
transmitted beams.”
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

11
interrupted, the interruption is transmitted as data (“information items can
contain, in particular, indications about what transmitted beams were
interrupted at what point in time and for how long”) which can be used by
the control unit to “classify an object that breaks through the transmitted
beams.” The Examiner found that this data serves as the claimed
“measurement pattern.” The Examiner’s finding is consistent with the
description of a “measurement pattern” in the Specification as “data
corresponding to the measurement data of the sensor prior to undergoing an
object evaluation,” for example, “the pixel information of a safety sensor
such as a light grid.” Spec. 3:18–27. That is, the data from the interrupted
light beams in Weddingfeld is analogous to the pixel information of the light
grid described in the Specification. In fact, sensor 24b shown Figure 3 above
of Weddingfeld is a light grid. Weddingfeld ¶ 32.

Bouse
The Examiner cited Bouse as describing a system processor receiving
feedback from motor controllers through a bus. Final Act. 8. The Examiner
also found that Bouse “teaches system processor receiving fault information
based on parameter data which is used by the system processor to issue
control commands” and that therefore “the system processor has access to
parameter data” as recited in [8] of claim 19. Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that Bouse fails to “transmit fault information from
local processors to a system processor via a communication network,” but
does not identify any deficiency in the citations to Bouse relied upon by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 11. With regard to Appellant’s reference to the
“communication network,” we note that the Examiner cited Weddingfeld for
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

12
the common bus communication through which the components in claim 19
communicate.

“one-way communication interface”
Claim 19 recites that [9] “the measurement pattern measured by the at
least one safety sensor is transmitted over the common secure bus
connection via a one-way communication interface that is suitable only for
transmitting data over the one-way communication interface.”
The Examiner found this limitation to be met by Weddingfeld. Final
Act. 7. Appellant argues that a one-way communication interface is not
described by Weddingfeld. Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner explained:
The limitation doesn’t define a specific type of one-way
communication interface. It simply recites, “one-way
communication interface”, therefore it can be reasonably
interpreted as an interface through which information travels
towards one direction. Since input 18 in Weddingfeld is
explicitly recited as an “input” and since there is a separate
interface “output 22” for output, one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the “input” as interface through which sensor
data only travels inwards toward the secure bus and ultimately to
the controller, therefore it teaches a one-way communication
interface.
Ans. 10.
Appellant states that it is unclear where the Examiner is relying on
“element 26 in its entirety, or elements 26 and 28 in combination,” and that
there is no basis in Weddingfeld to interpret 26 and/or 27 as a one-way
communication interface. Reply Br. 2–3.4

4 The argument on these pages also conflates the one-way interface with the
measurement pattern. However, as explained above, Appellant did not
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

13
First, as explained above, the serial communication connection 26 of
Weddingfeld performs all the communication functions recited in claim 19.
Appellant did not identify a deficiency in this finding by the Examiner. The
claim does not exclude an additional separate controller 28, and as explained
by the Examiner, the addition of controller 28 does not affect the function of
the serial communication connection 26 in connecting the recited
components to each other. See Final Act. 2–3. Thus, there is no ambiguity in
the Examiner’s finding that the serial communication connection 26 is being
relied upon as the “one-way communication interface.” The Specification, as
indicated above, does not provide a special definition5 of the “one-way
communication interface” that would distinguish it from the disclosure of
Weddingfeld describing one-way communication from input 18 to output
22. See Fig. 3 of Weddingfeld; also Weddingfeld ¶ 30 (“Inputs 18 for the
connection of sensors 20a and outputs 22 for the connection of actuators
24a-b are provided in the connector modules 16a-d.”).

identify a defect in the Examiner’s finding that Scheiber describes a
measurement pattern.
5 Although a patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer
of patent claim terms, in ex parte prosecution it must be within limits. See In
re Corr, 347 F.2d 578, 580 (CCPA 1965). The applicant must do so by
placing such definitions in the Specification with sufficient clarity to provide
a person of ordinary skill in the art with clear and precise notice of the
meaning that is to be construed. See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (although an inventor is free to define the specific terms
used to describe the invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision; where an inventor chooses to give terms
uncommon meanings, the inventor must set out any uncommon definition in
some manner within the patent disclosure so as to give one of ordinary skill
in the art notice of the change).
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

14
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown error in the
rejection of claim 19 as obvious in view of Scheiber, Weddingfeld, and
Bouse is affirmed. Claims 20, 21, 23–25, 32, and 38 were not argued
separately and fall with claim 19.

CLAIM 37
Claim 37 is directed to a system “for automated control of at least one
machine component located in a plant and operating in a safety area of a
plant that is monitored by at least one safety sensor” which recites similar
limitations as recited in claim 19.
Appellant’s arguments appear to be the same as for claim 19. Appeal
Br. 13–15. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 37 is affirmed for the same
reasons as for claim 19.

CLAIMS 33 and 39
Dependent claim 33 depends from claim 19, and further recites
“wherein the data transmitted from the at least one safety sensor to the
automation component includes a time stamp.” Claim 39 has similar
language, but depends from claim 37.
The Examiner cited Scheiber’s teaching in paragraphs 34–35 that
measurement data (interruption data) “is transmitted clock-synchronously
with the clock line” and also teaches that “the data includes what transmitted
beams were interrupted at what point in time and for how long.” Final Act.
11.
Appellant argues that the term “time-stamp “is simply no where found
on the noted paragraphs.” Appeal Br. 16.
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

15
Appellant does not identify a special meaning of the term “time-
stamp.” Thus, we interpret it to mean that the data from the safety sensor
includes the time at which a hazardous situation occurred (see step [5] of
claim 19 reciting “detecting a hazardous situation based on data transmitted
from the at least one safety sensor to the automation component.”). Scheiber
discloses that the “Detail information” from the sensor can include “at what
point in time and for how long” there was an interruption in the sensor.
Scheiber ¶ 35. The “point in time” when the interruption occurred is the
same as a “time-stamp” because it indicates the time when the interruption
occurred, therefore meeting the limitation of the claim. Appellant did not
explain why Scheiber is deficient.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 33 and 39 is affirmed for the
reasons given by the Examiner.

CLAIM 43
Independent claim 43 is directed to a method “for automated control
of at least one machine component located in a plant and operating in a
safety area monitored by at least one safety sensor.” The claim recites
substantially the same steps as claim 19, with additional limitations. The
rejection is substantially the same as for claim 19.
Appellant makes the same unpersuasive arguments regarding
Scheiber, Weddingfeld, and Bouse. (We note that most of Appellant’s
arguments are merely denying that the references describe the recited
limitations, without specifically identifying a deficiency in the Examiner’s
findings which is not compliant with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) as a
separate argument (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as
to each ground of rejection contested by appellant. . . . A statement which
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

16
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.”). For the additionally cited Tino,
Appellant merely states that Tino does not make up for the features
“lacking” in Scheiber, Weddingfeld, and Bouse. Appeal Br. 21. The
rejection is therefore affirmed for the same reasons as for claim 19.

CLAIMS 22, 27–31, 36, and 42
Appellant states dependent claims 22, 27–31, 36, and 42 are
patentable for same reason as for the claims for which they depend, but does
not provide separate arguments for their patentability. Appeal Br. 17, 22–25,
28. Such arguments are not compliant with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (see
above) and thus the rejections of these claims are affirmed for the same
reasons as for claim 19.
CLAIMS 34 and 40
Claim 34 depend from claim 19, and further recites “wherein the
common secure bus connection utilizes a secure bus protocol that is one of:
an openSAFETY secure bus protocol; an ProfiSafe secure bus protocol; and
a CIPsafety secure bus protocol.”
The Examiner found that Weddingfeld describes using a safe bus
connection such as Profibus for transmitting information, but not using one
of the claimed secure bus protocols. Final Act. 21. The Examiner found,
however, that PROFIsafe discloses using ProfiSafe “as an additional layer
on top of existing Profibus protocols” and that the skilled worker would
have had reason to use it to “make the communication more secure by
reducing the error probability of the data transmission between devices to
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

17
the level required by or better than the relevant standards as taught by
PROFIsafe.” Id.
Appellant “acknowledges that the recited optional protocols are
known,” but argues that “the Examiner has provided no teaching or
suggestion for using the same on the recited common secure bus connection.
The fact that such protocols are known does not per se provide the requisite
basis or motivation to use the same on the recited common secure bus
connection.” Appeal Br. 25.
This argument is unavailing. The Examiner, as explained above,
provides a reason to use PROFIsafe secure bus protocol based on the
disclosure in Weddingfeld of using Profibus and PROFIsafe. Appellant
simply states, without identifying a deficiency in the Examiner’s reasoning,
that no basis or motivation was provided by the Examiner to reach the
claimed limitation, an argument inconsistent with the Examiner’s statement
of the rejection. Appellant has not shown error in the rejection of claim 34
and therefore affirmed based on the findings and reasons provided by the
Examiner.
Claim 40 depends from claim 37, but otherwise recites the same
limitations as for claim 34. Appellant’s argument is unavailing for the same
reasons as for claim 34. Appeal Br. 26–27. The rejection of claim 40 is
therefore affirmed based on the findings and reasons provided by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 22–23.

Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

18
CLAIMS 35 and 41
Claims 35 depends from claim 19, and further recites “wherein the
common secure bus connection satisfies requirements related to transmission
security stipulated in one of: IEC 61784-3; or IEC 61508.”
The Examiner found that Weddingfeld describes using a safe bus
connection such as Profibus for transmitting information, but doesn’t teach
the connection utilizing one of claimed secure bus protocols. Final Act. 22.
However, the Examiner found that PROFIsafe teaches “using Profisafe as an
additional layer on top of existing Profibus protocols” and “ProfiSafe
conforms to IEC 61508 standard.” Id. The Examiner reasoned that the
skilled worker would have been motivated to use PROFIsafe as the secure
bus protocol to “make the communication more secure by reducing the error
probability of the data transmission between devices to the level required by
or better than the relevant standards as taught by PROFIsafe.” Id.
Appellant “acknowledges that the recited optional IEC requirements
are known,” but asserts that the Examiner did not provide “the requisite
basis or motivation to use the same on the recited common secure bus
connection.” Appeal Br. 26. Appellant’s argument is clearly inconsistent
with the Examiner’s stated reason for rejecting claim 35 as explained above.
Appellant has not shown error in the rejection of claim 35 and therefore
affirmed based on the findings and reasons provided by the Examiner.
Claim 41 depends from claim 37, but otherwise recites the same
limitations as for claim 35. Appellant’s argument is unavailing for the same
reasons as for claim 35. Appeal Br. 27–28. The rejection of claim 41 is
therefore affirmed based on the findings and reasons provided by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 23.
Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

19

Summary
To the extent any of the claims were not argued separately, they fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19–21, 23–
25, 32, 33,
37–39
103 Scheiber,
Weddingfeld,
Bouse
19–21, 23–
25, 32, 33,
37–39

22 103 Scheiber,
Weddingfeld,
Bouse, Milbrath
22
27 103 Scheiber,
Weddingfeld,
Bouse, Tino
27
28 103

Scheiber,
Weddingfeld,
Bouse, Beck
28
29–31 103

Scheiber,
Weddingfeld,
Bouse, Ludolf
29–31
34, 35, 40,
41
103 Scheiber,
Weddingfeld,
Bouse, PROFIsafe
34, 35, 40,
41

36 103 Scheiber,
Weddingfeld,
Bouse, Grabinger
36
42, 43 103 Scheiber,
Weddingfeld,
Bouse, Tino
42, 43
Overall
Outcome
19–25, 27–
43

Appeal 2020-004027
Application 15/281,633

20

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED