Ex Parte Hedtke

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2009

11012660 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT C. HEDTKE
____________________

Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,6601
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Decided: August 27, 2009
____________________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, and 14.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Rosemount Inc.
2 Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 24-26 stand withdrawn from
consideration. Claims 13, 16, 18-23, and 27-38 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,660

Appellant’s invention relates to electrically connecting process
variable transmitters to transmit over an instrument loop in an industrial
environment (Spec. 1). An instrument loop adapter is provided that includes
an interface portion that is configured to couple to a header of a miniature
process variable transmitter (Spec. 2). The process variable transmitter
includes a sealed feedthrough electrical connector (Spec. 4).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. An instrument loop adapter for coupling a process variable transmitter
to a loop, the adapter comprising:
an interface portion adapted to engage a sealed feedthrough electrical
connector of the process variable transmitter to couple the process
variable transmitter to the loop; and
a circuit board disposed within the interface portion, the circuit
board having active circuitry that uses power.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Chaumont US 5,058,437 Oct. 22, 1991
Louwagie US 5,606,513 Feb. 25, 1997
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Louwagie.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Louwagie in view of Chaumont.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed April 18, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed June 6, 2008) for their respective details.
2
Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,660

ISSUE
Appellant argues that Louwagie does not disclose that electronics
housing 14 is sealed, or provides a sealed feedthrough electrical connector
(Br. 9). Appellant’s contentions thus present us with the following issue:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Louwagie teaches an interface portion adapted to engage a sealed
feedthrough electrical connector of a process variable transmitter?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns electrically
connecting process variable transmitters to transmit over an instrument loop
in an industrial environment (Spec. 1). An instrument loop adapter is
provided that includes an interface portion that is configured to couple to a
header of a miniature process variable transmitter (Spec. 2). The process
variable transmitter includes a sealed feedthrough electrical connector (Spec.
4).
Louwagie
2. Figure 1 shows boss 12 positioned at the junction of electronics
housing 14 and sensor housing 16. Boss 12 is integral to sensor housing 16
so that “the signal does not travel through the electronics housing where
noisy digital signals are present”; its location “minimizes the distance which
the uncompensated temperature signal must travel before digitization by
sensor micro 72” on circuit board 67 (col. 9, ll. 34-39).
3
Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,660

3. Temperature sensor 8 transmits an analog sensed temperature
over cable 10 and connects with sensor module 16 through explosion proof
boss 12 (col. 4, ll. 38-40; Fig. 1).
4. Figure 4 further depicts cable retainer 150 retaining armored
cabling 152, which includes four signal wires 154 for a four wire resistive
measurement (see col. 8, ll. 57-66).
5. Armored cabling 152 has a conductive shield 155 protecting
signal wires from EMI interference and terminates in a rubber plug 156
having a grounding washer 158 with grounding tape 157 (col. 8, l. 67 – col.
9, l. 3).
6. Two guide sockets 163 and four signal connector sockets 167
mate to guidepins 165 and feedthroughs 164 in a grounded plate which is
welded into boss 12 (col. 9, ll. 5-7).
7. Feedthrough pins 164 are potted in glass so that grounded plate
160 seals the interior of transmitter 2 from the environment (col. 9, ll. 21-
23).
Chaumont
8. Chaumont teaches an apparatus allowing an operator to
determine the quantity yield of a compressible fluid such as a combustible
gas flowing through a conduit, where the conduit has a pressure reducing
valve for the fluid or gas (col. 1, ll. 7-12).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
4
Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,660

(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue reads on a
prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-
420.
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-4, 7, 11, AND 14
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that Louwagie does not anticipate the claimed
invention, because it does not disclose that electronics housing 14 is sealed,
or provides a sealed feedthrough electrical connector (Br. 9).
The Examiner finds that Figures 1 and 4, taken together, show an
interface portion (sensor housing 16) adapted to engage a sealed feedthrough
electrical connector (electronics housing 14), a circuit board (Fig. 2: 67, 68)
being disposed within the interface portion (Ans. 4-5).
5
Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,660

We agree with the Examiner that Louwagie teaches all the limitations
of claim 1.

Louwagie Figure 4, showing sensor housing 16, boss 12, and components of
cable 10 (shown as 152 in this Figure) incoming from temperature sensor 8

Louwagie Fig. 4 explicitly identifies sensor housing 16 (disclosed as
including circuit boards 67, 68; see col. 5, ll. 14 and 573). Boss 12, shown in
both figures, is integral to sensor housing 16 so that “the signal does not

3 Louwagie teaches that “[s]ensor digital board 76 is located in sensor
housing 16 and includes EEPROM 70, micro 72 and clock circuit 74.” (Col.
5, ll. 57-59). Inspection of Figure 2 indicates that sensor digital board is
element 67.
6
Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,660

travel through the electronics housing where noisy digital signals are
present”; its location “minimizes the distance which the uncompensated
temperature signal must travel before digitization by sensor micro 72” on
circuit board 67 (FF 2). Temperature sensor 8 transmits an analog sensed
temperature over cable 10 and connects with sensor module 16 via explosion
proof boss 12 (FF 3). We find that temperature sensor 8 and cable 10
correspond to the “process variable transmitter” recited in claim 1.
Figure 4 further depicts cable retainer 150 retaining armored cabling
152, which includes four signal wires 154 for a four wire resistive
measurement (FF 4). Armored cabling 152 has a conductive shield 155
protecting signal wires from EMI interference and terminates in a rubber
plug 156 having a grounding washer 158 with grounding tape 157 (FF 5).
Two guide sockets 163 and four signal connector sockets 167 mate to
guidepins 165 and feedthroughs 164 in a grounded plate which is welded
into boss 12 (FF 6). Feedthrough pins 164 are potted in glass so that
grounded plate 160 seals the interior of transmitter 2 from the environment
(FF 7; emphasis added).
We find that signal wires 154 and signal connector sockets 167 of
cabling 152, taken together, correspond to the claimed “sealed feedthrough
electrical connector” of the process variable transmitter. We further find
that wires 154 and sockets 167 feed through and are sealed by rubber plug
156.
Thus, Louwagie Figures 1 and 4 taken together illustrate each of the
claim limitations at issue, including an interface portion (16, including
feedthrough pins 164) adapted to engage a sealed feedthrough electrical
connector (which includes components 152, 154, 156, 167, et al., as
7
Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,660

discussed supra) of a process variable transmitter (8, 10), as required by
claim 1.
Louwagie therefore teaches all of the elements of claim 1, and
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 11, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Louwagie.
CLAIM 9
Appellant asserts only that dependent claim 9 is allowable for the
reasons that independent claim 1 is allowable. Therefore, we find no error in
the rejection of claim 9 under § 103, for the same reasons expressed supra
with respect to claim 1, rejected under § 102.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Louwagie teaches an interface portion adapted to engage a sealed
feedthrough electrical connector of a process variable transmitter.
8
Appeal 2009-003988
Application 11/012,660

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, and 14 is affirmed.
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

ELD

WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
9