Ex Parte Zink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12601212 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/601,212 04/19/2010
79526 7590 09/02/2016
KBSO Law I International
100 Matawan Road, Suite 120
Matawan, NJ 07747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fabian Zink
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.
9771-180US 5832
EXAMINER
MCANDREW, CHRISTOPHER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
international@kbsolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FABIAN ZINK
Appeal2015-003779
Application 12/601,212
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1-6 as
unpatentable over Larson2 in view of Dara, 3 and claims 7 and 8 as
unpatentable over Larson and Dara and further in view of Steffek. 4 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.5
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Phoenix Contact GmbH &
Co. KG. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Larson et al., US 2007/0103828 Al, published May 10, 2007.
3 Dara, US 5,237,480 A, issued Aug. 17, 1993.
4 Steffek et al., US 5,784,268 A, issued July 21, 1998.
5 Our decision refers to Appellant's Specification (Spec.) filed Nov. 20,
2009, the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Feb. 24, 2014, Appellant's
Appeal2015-003779
Application 12/601,212
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to circuit assemblies for error
indication (see, e.g., claim 1 ). Appellant discloses that relay couplers or
optical couplers have been used to issue a message or indication of an error
on an error indicating line. Spec. 1:12-14. In these prior circuits, an error
message is issued as a static signal by changing the potential between a first
value and a second value when an error occurs, with the potential remaining
at the second value for the duration of the error. Id. at 1: 17-22. Appellant
discloses this arrangement is disadvantageous because the error indication
does not indicate the type of error so it is not possible to determine whether
the error is serious or what the cause of the error may be. Id. at 1 :22-27.
Appellant discloses a circuit assembly in which a connection circuit
places an error indicating line at a predetermined potential if an operating
voltage of a coupler is insufficient, wherein the coupler controls the
connection circuit to place an error signal on the error indicating line if a
signal transmitter issues an error signal. Id. at 2:8-17.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
Appellant's Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The
limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A circuit assembly for error indicating, comprising:
a signal transmitter for issuing error signals;
an error indicating line that is connected with an error
indication evaluation device;
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Aug. 25, 2014, the Examiner's Answer
(Ans.) delivered Dec. 16, 2014, and Appellant's Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed Feb. 10, 2015.
2
Appeal2015-003779
Application 12/601,212
a coupler for galvanic separation of the error indicating
line from the signal transmitter;
a power supply for providing an operating voltage for the
coupler; and
a connection circuit between the coupler and the error
indicating line, which places the error indicating line at a
predetermined potential, the error indication potential, when
the operating voltage of the coupler is insufficient;
wherein the connection circuit is controllable by the
coupler, in such a manner that when the signal transmitter
issues an error signal, the connection circuit places the error
signal onto the error indicating line.
Appeal Br. 15.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Larson discloses a circuit assembly for error
indication comprising a signal transmitter for issuing error signals, an error
indicating line, a coupler, a power supply for providing an operating voltage
for the coupler, and a connection circuit, citing the detector circuit 2106 of
Larson. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds the connection circuit is between
the coupler and the error indicating line and is controllable by the coupler so
the connection circuit places an error signal onto the error indicating line
when the signal transmitter issues an error signal. Id.
However, the Examiner finds Larson does not disclose that the
connection circuit places the error indicating line at a predetermined
potential, the error indication potential, when the operating voltage of the
coupler is insufficient, as recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner finds Dara
6 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal2015-003779
Application 12/601,212
discloses a connection circuit that places an error indicating line at a
predetermined potential, an error indication potential, when an operating
voltage of a coupler is insufficient, citing the configuration depicted in
Figure 1 of Dara. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to modify Larson in view of Dara to have an error indication potential when
the operating voltage of the coupler is insufficient so other elements of a
circuit are protected. Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends Larson and Dara do not suggest any need for
additional protection of any other elements of a circuit. Appeal Br. 11. This
argument is not persuasive of reversible error. A teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to combine the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be
found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching, suggestion, or motivation
may be implicit from the prior art as a whole. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) cited with approval in KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, the Examiner has provided a reason to
modify the circuit of Larson in view of the teachings of Dara. See Final Act.
5. Indeed, Dara teaches providing an error indication potential upon a
decrease in the operating voltage of the coupler in order to detect a faulty
circuit power supply. Dara 5:52---6:5. Appellant's argument that the applied
references do not suggest such a need for protection of circuit elements thus
does not direct to us an error in the Examiner's reason to combine Larson
and Dara.
In addition, Appellant argues Dara does not disclose or suggest
circuitry for detecting whether or not the operating voltage of a coupler is
insufficient or otherwise monitoring the operating voltage of the coupler.
Appeal Br. 11-12. However, we note claim 1 is not limited to the
4
Appeal2015-003779
Application 12/601,212
embodiment depicted in Appellant's drawing or to the embodiments
described in the Specification. Claim 1 recites that the connection circuit
places the error indicating line at predetermined potential "when the
operating voltage of the coupler is insufficient." As discussed above, the
Examiner finds Dara discloses a connection circuit that places an error
indicating line at a predetermined potential when the operating voltage of the
coupler is insufficient. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. Appellant's argument does not
direct us to a reversible error in the Examiner finding or otherwise explain
why Dara does not disclose the functional recitation in claim 1 regarding the
insufficiency of an operating voltage for a coupler.
Appellant argues that combining Larson and Dara would involve great
complexity, requiring a significant redesign of the circuit of Larson. Appeal
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5-6. This argument is also unpersuasive. The
Examiner finds the complexity of the circuit resulting from the combination
of Larson and Dara would not have been impractical. Ans. 5. Further, as
stated by the Examiner, the complexity of Larson and Dara is not relevant in
an inquiry of obviousness. Ans. 3. "For obviousness under§ 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success." In re 0 'Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Appellant's argument that
combining Larson and Dara would create a complex circuit does not
demonstrate a lack of a reasonable expectation of success in making the
combination or that the combination would not provide the circuit assembly
of claim 1. Moreover, Appellant does not explain why the combination of
Larson and Dara would require a significant redesign of Larson's circuit,
other than assert "it would be reasonable to assume" such a significant
redesign would be required. Reply Br. 5.
5
Appeal2015-003779
Application 12/601,212
Appellant next asserts claim 1 recites a single connection circuit but
the combination of Larson and Dara would provide an assembly including
two connection circuits. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4--5. This argument fails
to persuade us of reversible error because Appellant does not explain why
the combination of Larson and Dara would necessarily result in two
connection circuits. In addition, we note that claim 1 does not limit the
connection circuit to a single circuit and therefore does not exclude an
arrangement including two connection circuits.
Appellant argues that even if one of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined the teachings of Larson and Dara, the resulting circuit would
be different from the circuit assembly of claim 1 because claim 1 recites a
connection circuit (a) arranged between a coupler and an error indicating
line; (b) controllable by a coupler so, when a signal transmitter issues an
error signal, the connection circuit places the error signal onto an error
indicating line; and ( c) places the error indicating line at a predetermined
potential, the error indication potential, when the operating voltage of the
coupler is insufficient. Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Larson discloses a connection circuit (a) arranged
between a coupler and an error indicating line and (b) controllable by a
coupler so, when a signal transmitter issues an error signal, the connection
circuit places the error signal onto an error indicating line. Ans. 4--5. The
disclosure of Larson supports the Examiner's findings because the circuit of
the detector system 210 is between the optical isolator 290 and the line for
output signal 280, as depicted in Figure 2 of Larson. Moreover, paragraphs
26-28 of Larson disclose that when protection device 115 operates under
6
Appeal2015-003779
Application 12/601,212
abnormal conditions, the optical isolator 290 causes issuance of the output
signal 280.
The Examiner finds Dara discloses a connection circuit that ( c) places
the error indicating line at a predetermined potential, the error indication
potential, when the operating voltage of the coupler is insufficient, citing
Dara's disclosure at column 5, line 52 to column 6, line 12. Ans. 5.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding in the Reply Brief.
Therefore, Appellant's argument does not direct us to a reversible error in
the Examiner's findings.
Appellant does not present any arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claims 2---6. Appeal Br. 12. Therefore, for the reasons set
forth above, and for those expressed in the Examiner's Answer, the§ 103(a)
rejection of claims 1---6 over Larson and Dara is sustained.
For the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Larson
and Dara and further in view of Steffek, Appellant merely reiterates the
arguments set forth in support of the patentability of claim 1 and contends
Steffek does not remedy the deficiencies of the references applied in the
rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 12-13. For the reasons set forth above,
there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by
Steffek. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Larson, Dara, and
Steffek.
DECISION
On the record before us, the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 1-
8 are affirmed.
7
Appeal2015-003779
Application 12/601,212
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
8