14782800 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

Ex Parte Schauble et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 2018

14782800 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/782,800 10/07/2015 Harald Schauble 23364 7590 07/31/2018 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC 625 SLATERS LANE FOURTH FLOOR ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176 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. ZENU3002/JS 7690 EXAMINER TRANDAI, CINDY HUYEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2018 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@BACONTHOMAS.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HARALD SCHAUBLE, THORSTEN SPRINGMANN, and AMEND ZENUNI 1 Appeal2018-000456 Application 14/782,8002 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Endress + Hauser Wetzer GMBH +Co.KG. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of Apr. 8, 2013. Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the U.S. Code(Â§Â§ 102, 103) are applicable. See MPEP Â§ 2159.02 (The amended sections "apply to any patent application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013."). Appeal2018-000456 Application 14/782,800 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 9-16. Claims 1-8 have been canceled. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 4. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appellants' Invention The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns process automation controls and, more specifically, measuring transducer supply units, systems for use in automation technology, and methods for operating system for use in automation technology. The measuring transducer supply unit connects to field unit and a superordinate unit via separate two-wire lines. The measuring transducer supply unit includes a radio module, a switch that activates ( or deactivates) the radio module. The measuring transducer supply unit also includes a circuit that identifies the conversion of signals on the two-wire lines and signals the radio unit, so that the field unit may be operated by the radio module using a wireless communications connection or by the connection to the field unit. Spec. 1 :5-13, 1 :22-2:23, 7:20-8:34; Abstract. 3 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Oct. 7, 2015 (claiming benefit of PCT/EP2014/052992 filed Feb. 17, 2014 and DE 10 2013 103 454.3 filed Apr. 8, 2013); Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed May 17, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Oct. 17, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Oct. 27, 2016, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Aug. 17, 2017. 2 Appeal2018-000456 Application 14/782,800 Illustrative Claim Independent claim 9, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 9. A measuring transducer supply unit for use in automation technology that enables the connection to at least one field unit via a first two-wire line and to a superordinate unit via a second two-wire line, whereby the measuring transducer supply unit comprises at least: one switch; one radio module; and one circuit, wherein: said radio module can be activated and de-activated by said switch; said circuit realizes the conversion of signals between signals of two-wire lines and signals of said radio unit, so that the minimum of one field unit that is connected to the measuring transducer supply unit via said first two-wire line can be operated by means of said radio module using a wireless communications connection and by means of the connection between the measuring transducer supply unit and the at least one field unit via said first two-wire line. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kielb et al. (US 2008/0280568 Al, published Nov. 13, 2008) ("Kielb") and Wang et al. (US 2014/0103897 Al, published Apr. 17, 2014 (filed Oct. 17, 2012)) ("Wang"). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kielb, Wang, and Burr et al. (US 2008/0126665 Al, published May 29, 2008) ("Burr"). 3 Appeal2018-000456 Application 14/782,800 3. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kielb, Wang, and Pratt et al. (US 2008/0274766 Al, published Nov. 6, 2008) ("Pratt"). ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kielb and Wang would have collectively taught or suggested a "measuring transducer supply unit comprises at least[ ] one switch" and that the "radio module can be activated and de-activated by [the] switch" within the meaning of Appellants' claim 9 and the commensurate limitations of claims 12 and 16? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 16 ( and independent claims 9 and 12) as being obvious in view of Kielb and Wang. See Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 11-15. In particular, the Examiner relies on Kielb to teach the disputed feature of a switch that activates or deactivates the radio module. See Final Act. 3-5 ( citing Kielb ,r,r 65---66; Fig. 9, element 320; Wang ,r 27; Fig. 1 ); Ans. 3--4 (citing Kielb ,r,r 61, 68; Fig. 9, element 372; Wang ,r 27). Initially the Examiner proposes Kielb's super capacitor (320) as the disputed switch element (see Final Act. 3-5), but changes the mapping in the Examiner's Answer, proposing Kielb's DC to DC converter (372) as the switch (see Ans. 3--4). Appellants contend that neither Kielb, nor Wang teach the disputed features of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11-16; Reply Br. 2--4. Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia, that neither Kielb's super capacitor, nor Kielb' s DC to DC converter are a switch-"the capacitor is 4 Appeal2018-000456 Application 14/782,800 [not] used as a switch, which is as a person having ordinary skills in the art knows an electrical component that can break or interrupt an electrical circuit" (Appeal Br. 15; see Appeal Br. 15-16) and "Kielb 's DC to DC converter is a power supply and not a switch" (Reply Br. 3; see Reply Br. 2- 4 ). We agree with Appellants that a switch connects or interrupts an electrical circuit (supra). Therefore, we also agree with Appellants that the Examiner's strained interpretation of either Kielb' s super capacitor or Kielb' s DC to DC converter would not have taught or suggested the disputed switch. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Kielb and Wang renders obvious Appellants' claim 9. Independent claims 12 and 16 include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 10, 11, and 13-15 depend from and stand with claims 9 and 12, respectively. CONCLUSION Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 9-16. REVERSED 5