Ex Parte Beck

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2017

13651571 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 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.
13/651,571 10/15/2012 Klaus Beck B5484US; 67267-051US1 6582
26096 7590 05/24/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
AZAD, MD ABUL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS BECK
Appeal 2016-004512
Application 13/651,571
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOYCE CRAIG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—9, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Buerkert Werke GmbH.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004512
Application 13/651,571
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to devices and
methods for closed-loop and open-loop control of processes using an
actuating means, a position sensor, a process valve, a process sensor, and
a tuning stage. Spec. Tflf 1,4, Abstract.2
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows, with italics indicating the
limitations at issue in claim 1:
1. A method for an open-loop or closed-loop control of
a process using an actuator, a position sensor, a process valve,
a process sensor, and a tuning stage, comprising:
approaching n positions of the process valve;
detecting associated n actual position values;
detecting actual process values associated with each
actual position value to thus obtain value pairs of actual
position values and actual process values;
determining correction values based on identified value
pairs;
calculating corrected position set values based on the
correction values for compensating for nonlinearities of the
process to achieve a linear overall behavior; and
analyzing the actual position values, the position set
values, the corrected position set values, and/or the actual
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed October 15, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed April 29, 2015; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed
July 9, 2015; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed September 28, 2015;
“Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 10, 2016; and “Reply
Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed March 24, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-004512
Application 13/651,571
process values associated therewith to evaluate different
dimensioning aspects of the process valve and output an
evaluation.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Boger et al. (“Boger”) US 6,272,401 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
Junk US 7,349,745 B2 Mar. 25,2008
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1,2, 4—7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Boger. Final Act. 3—8; Ans. 3—8.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Boger and Junk. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 9-10.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1,2, and 4—9 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we concur with Appellant’s contention that the cited portions of the
references fail to disclose or suggest evaluating different dimensioning
aspects of a process valve according to claims 1 and 4 based on an analysis
of the particular values recited in the claims.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4—7,
and 9 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 4
because Boger does not disclose “analyzing the actual position values, the
position set values, the corrected position set values, and/or the actual
3
Appeal 2016-004512
Application 13/651,571
process values associated therewith to evaluate different dimensioning
aspects of the process valve and output an evaluation.” See App. Br. 3—5;
Reply Br. 2—5. According to Appellant, “Boger does not disclose or teach
evaluating any dimensioning aspect of a process valve.” App. Br. 5.
Regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Boger’s disclosure concerning
a relationship between valve position and actuator pressure used to assess
limit cycling, Appellant asserts that (1) limit cycling does not relate to valve
dimensioning, (2) nothing Boger suggests that actuator pressure depends on
valve size, and (3) even if actuator pressure depends on valve size, Boger
does not disclose or teach evaluating valve dimensioning according to
claims 1 and 4. App. Br. 5—6; see Final Act. 5 (citing Boger 6:17—20, 6:53—
56); Adv. Act. 2 (citing Boger 6:17—20). Regarding the Examiner’s reliance
on Boger’s disclosure concerning a BIAS signal used to position an actuator
so that it neither fills nor exhausts, Appellant asserts that the BIAS signal
“varies from actuator to actuator and will vary in the same actuator with
temperature and other operating conditions.” Reply Br. 4; see Ans. 11—12
(citing Boger 9:23—27, 9:35—36, 10:16—17). Regarding the Examiner’s
reliance on Boger’s disclosure concerning an adjustable gain used to
“compensate for size-related and position-related valve nonlinearities,”
Appellant asserts that “size” refers to “error size” rather than “valve size.”
Reply Br. 4—5; see Ans. 12—13 (citing Boger 5:34—38, 32:29-30). Appellant
distinguishes Boger by arguing that “Boger makes no mention of evaluating
a dimensioning aspect of a process valve” because “evaluating a
dimensioning aspect of the valve involves . . . determining whether the size
of the valve itself is correct.” Reply Br. 4.
4
Appeal 2016-004512
Application 13/651,571
Based on the record before us, we are constrained to agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited
portions of Boger disclose “evaluat[ing] different dimensioning aspects of
the process valve” according to claims 1 and 4 based on an analysis of the
particular values recited in the claims. Consequently, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 4.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claims 5—7 and 9 depend from
claim 4. For the reasons discussed regarding claims 1 and 4, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of these dependent claims.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to
claims 1, 2, 4—7, and 9, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments
regarding Examiner error.
The Rejection of Claim 8 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 8 depends indirectly from claim 4 and requires “a switchover
device to output the position set values from the tuning stage to the
positioner, or to output corrected position set values from the process
controller to the positioner.” App. Br. 12 (Claims App.). Based on the
record before us, the Examiner has not identified any teaching in the
additionally cited Junk reference that overcomes the deficiency in Boger
discussed above for claims 1 and 4. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 8.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4—9.
REVERSED
5