Ex Parte Baret et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2017

14384434 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017)

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.
14/384,434 09/11/2014 Marc Baret BARE3005/JS 9165
23364 7590 12/14/2017
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
MAMO, ELIAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2017 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):
MAIL @B ACONTHOMAS .COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARC BARET, ERIC BIRGEL, JULIEN FISCHER,
MARTINE LEFEBVRE, ANDREA SEGER,
and
MATHIEU WEIBEL
Appeal 2017-008340
Application 14/3 84,4341
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 16 and 18—30, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Endress+Hauser GMBH+Co. KG as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Sept. 11, 2014 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Apr. 7, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Nov. 30, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 10,
Appeal 2017-008340
Application 14/384,434
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method for servicing a field device that
includes a wireless transmission module. Title; Abstract. Appellants’
method employs an adapter having its own wireless transmission module
and communication interface for communication via a fieldbus. Abstract.
Appellants’ method wirelessly retrieves data stored in a memory unit of the
field device, transmits the retrieved data to the adapter, connects the adapter
with a service device, and establishes a connection between the field device
and the service device via the fieldbus by means of the retrieved data.
Abstract. The retrieved data may include the fieldbus address of the field
device. Spec. 10:5—10.
Claims 16 and 18 are independent. Claim 16, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A method for servicing a field device having a first wireless
transmission module; an adapter is provided, which has a
corresponding second wireless transmission module, for
querying a transponder, the method comprising the steps of:
providing the field device with a first communication
interface for communication via a fieldbus, preferably a wired
fieldbus;
providing the adapter with a second communication
interface likewise for communication via the fieldbus, preferably
a wired fieldbus;
wirelessly retrieving data stored in a memory unit of the
field device by means of the first transmission module and by
means of the second transmission module and transmitted to the
adapter;
connecting the adapter with a service device; and
2017 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed May 10, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). We
note a previous Appeal Brief filed by Appellants on Oct. 11, 2016, had a
defective summary of the claimed subject matter.
2
Appeal 2017-008340
Application 14/384,434
by means of the retrieved data a connection is established
between the field device and the service device via the fieldbus,
wherein
the data retrieved from the memory unit comprises the
fieldbus address of the field device.
(App. Br. 16.)
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 16 and 20-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Kantzes et al. (US 2008/0268784 Al, published Oct. 30, 2008,
“Kantzes”) and Chomik et al. (US 2009/0138693 Al, published May 28,
2009, “Chomik”). (Final Act. 2-7.)3
(2) Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Kantzes, Chomik, and Myer et al. (US 6,574,234 Bl, issued June 3,
2003, “Myer”). (Final Act. 7-9.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 16 recites, inter alia: that “data is wirelessly
retrieved (from a field device) by an adapter, the adapter is connected with a
service device, and then by means of the retrieved data a connection is
established between the field device and the service device via the fieldbus,”
wherein “the data retrieved from the memory unit [of the field device]
comprises the fieldbus address of the field device.” (Reply Br. 2; App. Br.
11.)
3 Dependent claim 17 was cancelled in an After-Final Amendment (dated
July 7, 2016) entered in the Advisory Action (dated July 28, 2016). The
After-Final Amendment further amended claim 16 to include the limitations
of canceled claim 17. (See After-Final Amendment 2.)
3
Appeal 2017-008340
Application 14/384,434
Appellants contend Kantzes and Chomik do not teach or suggest
“obtaining the fieldbus address, via separate communication with a separate
device, prior to establishing communication,” or that “data retrieved from
the memory unit comprises the fieldbus address of the field device.”
(Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 11.) Appellants further argue “Kantzes does not even
disclose that the service device is coupled to the field device via a fieldbus at
all.” (App. Br. 13.) Appellants additionally argue Kantzes and Chomik do
not teach or suggest “that data is read out from a field device by an adapter,
and then that data is used to establish a connection between the field device
and a service device.” (Reply Br. 4.) We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own.
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Kantzes teaches “connecting a
field device with a handheld field maintenance tool (i.e., [a] service device)
via a wireless or wired fieldbus communication protocol.” (Ans. 6
(emphasis added) (citing Kantzes H 21, 28 (describing the
“FOUNDATION™ Fieldbus process communication protocol”).) As
further shown in Kantzes’ Figures 2 and 4, a wireless adapter (116)
communicates via a fieldbus (through the adapter’s loop communication
module 154) and enables a wireless field device (104) to connect to a service
device (102) via the fieldbus. (See Kantzes 128, Figs. 2 and 4.) Thus, we
do not agree with Appellants’ argument that “Kantzes does not even disclose
that the service device is coupled to the field device via a fieldbus at all.”
(See App. Br. 13.)
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
“references do not disclose or suggest that the data retrieved from the
memory unit comprises the fieldbus address of the field device,” as
4
Appeal 2017-008340
Application 14/384,434
required by claim 16. (App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 12.) As recognized
by the Examiner, Chomik’s “device address” is a fieldbus address of a field
device, as claimed. (Ans. 3 (citing Chomik 121).) That is, Chomik’s field
device is connectable to a fieldbus having a fieldbus-specific parameter
addressing system in which “different field devices are distinguished by
their device addresses, so that two different field devices connected to a
fieldbus can have identical groups and indices as fieldbus-specific parameter
addresses.” (Chomik 121 (emphasis added); see Ans. 4—5 (citing Chomik
121, Abstract).)
We also agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kantzes and
Chomik teaches and suggests “wirelessly retrieving data [comprising the
fieldbus address of the field device] stored in a memory unit of the field
device . . . and transmitted to the adapter,” and “by means of the retrieved
data a connection is established between the field device and the service
device via the fieldbus,” as claimed. (Ans. 5—6.) As evidenced by Chomik,
“addresses of devices has [sic] to be known in order to establish
communication between devices,” such as communication between a field
device and a fieldbus. (Ans. 5.) Additionally, Kantzes discloses
“establishing communication/connection between a field device and a
service device” using known protocols—such as the Highway Addressable
Remote Transducer (HART®) communication protocol—together with
wireless routing through Kantzes’ wireless adapter. (Ans. 5; see also
Kantzes H 21, 28, 35; Chomik | 6 (describing “the kind of fieldbus (e.g.
Profibus®, Foundation® Fieldbus, HART®, etc.)”).) In particular, Kantzes’
“[w]ireless process communication adapter 116 transforms the
communication, if necessary, into an appropriate wireless communication
5
Appeal 2017-008340
Application 14/384,434
signal, and sends the signal to wireless field device 104” in accordance with
“the Wireless HART® Protocol [that] is believed to use the same command
structure as the wired HART® Protocol.” (Kantzes 121.) In this way,
the wireless process communication adapter [of Kantzes] can
emulate, via its wired connection to the handheld field
maintenance tool, the exact wired signals that the selected
wireless field device would generate if it were connected via the
wired connection. In this manner, . . . the handheld field
maintenance tool 102 need not even know that it is not
communicating via a direct wired connection to a field device.
(Kantzes 135.) As is also known in the art, the HART automation protocol
has the ability to retrieve—via commands 0 and 11—a field device’s address
from the field device, in order to connect the field device to a master device.
(See Kantzes H 26-27.)4
We consider the skilled artisan, viewing these teachings of Kantzes,
would have recognized that Kantzes’ wireless adapter emulates wired
signals of the HART protocol—such signals including HART command
signals that retrieve the field device’s address for connecting the field device
to a service (master) device. Thus, we find the combination of Kantzes and
Chomik teaches and suggests the adapter wirelessly retrieves a field device’s
address from the field device for establishing a connection between the field
device and the service device via the fieldbus, as required by claim 16.
4 Commands 0 and 11 for the HART protocol are described at, e.g.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway Addressable Remote Transducer P
rptpcpl, as follows: “Address [specifies the destination address as
implemented in one of the HART schemes. . . . The newer scheme utilizes
38 bits to specify the device address. This address is requested from the
device using either Command 0, or Command 11,” that is, “Command 0 and
Command 11 are used to request the device number.”
6
Appeal 2017-008340
Application 14/384,434
Accordingly, for the stated reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 16 and 18, argued together (see App. Br. 9,
14; Reply Br. 2).
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 19-30.
(Id.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims
16 and 18, we sustain the rejection of these dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16 and 18—30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7