ENDRESS+HAUSER GMBH+CO. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2019003850 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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.
14/431,568 03/26/2015 Dietmar Fruhauf FRUH3003/JS-FD 6302
23364 7590 12/02/2020
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
BLACK-CHILDRESS, RAJSHEED O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 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 DIETMAR FRUHAUF, MICHAEL KONRAD,
and MARC BARET
Appeal 2019-003850
Application 14/431,568
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11–15 and 19–23. See Final Act. 1.
Claims 1–10 and 16–18 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims
Appendix). 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 Endress + Hauser
GMBH + Co. KG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003850
Application 14/431,568

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an arrangement and method for
implementing SIL (safety integrity level) measures in a plant by wirelessly
transmitting signals from a function block associated with a field device, to a
mobile computer unit that “performs . . . the SIL-functionality otherwise
implemented in the field device,” enabling retrofit of SIL-functionality to
existing field devices. Spec. 1:5–17, 3:14–17, 14:11–24.
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
11. An arrangement for implementing SIL-measures,
comprising:
at least one field device;
at least one sensor, or signal, detection unit associated or
associable therewith;
at least one function block; and
at least one mobile computer unit for performing
calculations and/or evaluations, wherein:
said at least one sensor, or signal, detection unit and said
at least one mobile computer unit comprise for wireless
communication with one another, in each case, at least one
system for wireless sending and receiving of data and/or
signals;
said at least one function block calculate a measured
value based on the signal from the at least one sensor, or signal,
detection unit; and
said at least one system for wireless sending and
receiving the measured value of said at least one function block
to said at least one mobile computer unit and said at least one
mobile computer unit calculates an actual value therefrom and
compares such with a predeterminable or predetermined,
desired value.
(Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).)
Appeal 2019-003850
Application 14/431,568

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Law et al. US 2010/0149997 A1 June 17, 2010
Senger et al US 2012/0283870 A1 Nov. 08, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 11–15 and 19–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Law in view of Senger. Final Act. 2–10.
OPINION
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellant contends Law does
not teach or suggest “at least one function block” that “calculate[s] a
measured value based on the signal from the at least one sensor, or signal,
detection unit” as claimed. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant submits “none of
Law’s elements 302–326 (nor the elements 302–326 taken collectively as
Appeal 2019-003850
Application 14/431,568

4
Law’s ‘verification junction box (VJB) 111a’) function to calculate a
measured value based on a signal from at least one sensor, or signal,
detection unit.” Id. In particular, Appellant argues Law’s analog-to-digital
converter does not teach the claimed function block calculating a measured
value based on a signal from a detection unit. Id. Rather, Appellant
contends, “[Law’s] analog-to-digital converter just converts analog values to
digitally represented values” and a “person skilled in the art knows that at
this point the calculation of the measured value based on the signal from the
at least on[e] sensor, or signal, detection unit has been already performed.”
Id. Appellant further argues “Law does not disclose or suggest at least one
system for wireless sending and receiving the measured value of said at
least one function block to said at least one mobile computer unit,” as
claimed. Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We first note that a
calculating function of the function block is not defined in Appellant’s
Specification. Ans. 4. Appellant’s Specification also does not provide a
definition for a “measured value” obtained from a function block. The
Specification describes “signals from the function blocks” (Spec. 14:11) and
“data and/or signals, from the . . . function blocks” (Spec. 8:18–19) being
obtained or queried. See also Spec. 4:9–10 (“wireless sending and receiving
of signals of the function blocks”), 7:23 (“signals of the individual function
blocks”), 7:28–29 (“signals obtained from the individual function blocks”),
8:9–10 (“signals of the function blocks of the field device are queried”),
15:1–2 (“signals of the individual function blocks 10a to 10n are transmitted
Appeal 2019-003850
Application 14/431,568

5
wirelessly”).2 The Specification explains that function blocks may be
associated with field devices (“function blocks of a plurality field devices,”
Spec. 7:25–26) and may enable reading of “essentially inaccessible field
devices” (“it is through the wireless communicating of the sensor, or signal,
registering unit, respectively the function blocks of the field device, with the
mobile computer unit possible also to read out essentially inaccessible field
devices in a plant,” Spec. 5:17–21). Thus, Appellant’s Specification
indicates that data and/or signals from function blocks may pertain to, or
characterize, data produced by field devices. However, Appellant’s
Specification does not describe details of any calculations performed by a
function block, and does not particularly explain how the function block
would calculate a measured value based on a detection unit’s signal (as
recited in claim 11). Ans. 4. Appellant’s Specification actually describes
the mobile computer unit performing calculating functions:
A calculating of actual values occurs in the mobile computer unit
based on the signals obtained from the individual function
blocks. . . .
The calculating occurs in the mobile computer unit 4, not in the
function blocks 10. . . .
Occurring in the mobile computer unit 4 is the calculating of the
actual values as well as the desired value versus actual value
comparison for the function blocks.

See Spec. 7:27–29, 12:4–5, 15:4–6. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner
that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, the claim language
“calculate [by a function block] a measured value based on the signal from
the at least one sensor, or signal, detection unit” includes Law’s teaching of

2 Citations are to the Specification filed March 26, 2015.
Appeal 2019-003850
Application 14/431,568

6
“convert[ing by an analog-to-digital converter 322] analog values (e.g.,
measurement values) received from the field device 112a to digitally
represented values.” See Law ¶ 84; Ans. 4–5 (citing Law ¶ 84; Spec. 11:13–
12:23). Law’s analog-to-digital conversion of field device measurement
values is “based on the signal from the at least one sensor, or signal,
detection unit,” as claimed; as the Examiner further explains, “in order to
perform a conversion process of data . . . a ‘calculation’ must occur in order
to convert the data.” Ans. 4–5.
Appellant opposes the Examiner’s claim interpretation on the basis
that
The analog-to-digital converter just converts analog values to
digitally represented values. A person skilled in the art knows
that at this point the calculation of the measured value based on
the signal from the at least one sensor, or signal, detection unit
has been already performed.

Appeal Br. 12. Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner
error because (as discussed supra) Appellant’s Specification and claim 11 do
not provide details regarding a function block’s calculation of a measured
value.
Appellant also argues “Law does not disclose or suggest at least one
system for wireless sending and receiving the measured value of said at
least one function block to said at least one mobile computer unit” at least
because “Law does not . . . disclose or suggest that, in the case where the
field device is an input device that measures a process . . . the I/O card will
send any signal, including converted information (i.e. the measured value),
to the verification controller 190.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s argument
belies Law’s description of its process control system’s operation. See Law
Appeal 2019-003850
Application 14/431,568

7
Fig. 1. In particular, Law provides that analog-to-digital converted values
“can be communicated to the I/O card 132a” of process controller 104 (see
Law ¶ 84, Fig. 1), and I/O card 132a transmits its data to verification
controller 190 (claimed mobile computer unit) via “LAN 106 [which] may
be based on a . . . wireless Ethernet communication protocol” and via
“transceiver 103 to enable wireless communication between an example
verification controller 190 and the workstation 102 and/or any process
controller 104 coupled to the workstation 102” (see Law ¶¶ 32–33, 43). See
also Final Act. 2–4.
Consequently, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of independent
claim 11. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim
11, and independent claim 19 reciting similar limitations and argued for the
same reasons. See Appeal Br. 9, 13, 16 (claim 19 reciting “providing at least
two field devices with at least one respective, associated sensor, or signal,
detection unit and at least two function blocks,” “said at least two function
blocks calculate a measured value based on the signal from the sensor, or
signal, detection unit,” and “providing a system for wireless sending and
receiving signals of the function blocks wirelessly transmitted to a mobile
computer unit”). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 12–15 and 20–23 argued for their dependency, and Appellant does
not set forth separate arguments for patentability. Appeal Br. 13.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 11–15 and 19–23 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2019-003850
Application 14/431,568

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–15,
19–23 103(a) Law, Senger
11–15,
19–23

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