Ex Parte Haynes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2017

13653462 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 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.
13/653,462 10/17/2012 Kevin M. Haynes MAG00580P00640US 8650
32116 7590 03/15/2017
WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER
500 W. MADISON STREET
SUITE 1130
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
AZAD, MD ABUL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2017 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):
docketing @ woodphillips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN M. HAYNES
Appeal 2016-005044
Application 13/653,462
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005044
Application 13/653,462
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A loop powered process instrument comprising:
a control system measuring a process variable and
developing a measurement signal representing the process
variable;
an output circuit, for connection to a remote power
source using a two-wire process loop, for controlling current on
the two-wire process loop in accordance with the measurement
signal; and
a power supply, connected to the output circuit and the
control system, for receiving power from the two-wire process
loop and supplying power to the control system, wherein the
power supply comprises a voltage regulator receiving loop
power and developing a regulated output voltage, and an
adjustable shunt regulator controlling voltage supplied to the
voltage regulator.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 7, 8, 11—15, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Flasza
(US 2004/0061537 Al, Apr. 1, 2004) and Schulte (US 2009/0224730 Al,
Sept. 10, 2009).1
1 As to claims 2—5, 7, 8, 11—15, 17, and 18, our decision as to claim 1 is
determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
2
Appeal 2016-005044
Application 13/653,462
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Flasza, Schulte, and
Wray (US 2011/0001435 Al, Jan. 6, 2011).2
Appellant’s Contentions3
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “the action incorrectly states that Schulte
teaches an adjustable shunt regulator controlling voltage supply to a voltage
regulator.” App. Br. 4.
As is clear in Fig 7, Schulte uses a switching regulator 212. The
shunt regulator 214 does not control the switching regulator
212. Indeed, they are not connected. Instead, the shunt regulator
214 is used as part of the loop current control. Moreover, the
action references paragraph [0037] in the above quote and then
includes a reference to “element 214 shunt regulator.” The
shunt regulator has nothing to do with the voltage regulator.
App. Br. 5.
[T]he shunt regulator has nothing to do with controlling voltage
supplied to the switching regulator. Instead, it controls loop
current.
App. Br. 6.
2. Appellant further contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The argument labeled Argument 3 in the examiner’s
answer relates to the issue just discussed, that the shunt
2 As to claims 6, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20, our decision as to claim 1 is
determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
3 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellant’s other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2016-005044
Application 13/653,462
regulator 214 does not control the switching regulator 212. The
examiner’s response is that in Schulte, the voltage provided to
the switching regulator 212 is variable and may be changed,
citing [0037]. Admittedly, the switching regulator may be
provided a voltage that varies. Thereafter, reference is made to
[0018] relating to loop current. This is nothing more than a
general discussion of how loop current operates in a
transmitter. . . . One skilled in the art would not view the
circuit of Schulte as teaching the shunt regulator controlling
voltage supply to the voltage regulator. Controlling loop current
does not control voltage supply to the regulator 212.
The shunt regulator is shunting the current which is not
required to power the field device back to the loop. Schulte
notes that problems can occur with a terminal voltage being
relatively large. This problem is solved by the use of the linear
regulator 232. Thus, it is the linear regulator that controls
voltage supply to the switching regulator 212. It is not the shunt
regulator 214 which shunts unused current back to the loop 206.
Reply Br. 3^4.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 1 and 2, we agree. We conclude,
consistent with Appellant’s argument, there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, we conclude that
there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final
conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of Appellant’s invention.
4
Appeal 2016-005044
Application 13/653,462
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1—20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
5