Rosemount Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2021

2020004656 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2021)

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.
15/290,757 10/11/2016 Loren Michael Engelstad E252.12-0196 1039
164 7590 09/09/2021
KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
312 SOUTH THIRD STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NAM V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2021 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):
dabulmer@kinney.com
uspatdocket@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LOREN MICHAEL ENGELSTAD,
DOUGLAS WAYNE ARNSTON, JASON HAROLD RUD,
CLARENCE EDWARD HOLMSTADT, RANDY KENNETH PASCHKE,
SERGEY VIKTOROVICH ASMOLOV, and
YURY MICKOLAEVICH KUZNETSOV
____________________

Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,7571
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
ORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 16–35.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Rosemount, Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–15 and 36 stand allowed.
Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,757

2
Appellant’s invention is a sensor assembly. A sensor signal is sent
from a sensing element to an attached process transmitter over sensor
connection wires. The sensor assembly has memory circuitry for storing
information related to the sensor assembly. Interface circuitry provides for
digital communication, over the sensor connection wires, of the stored
information. Abstract.

Claim 16 is reproduced below:
16. A sensor assembly for use with a process transmitter, the sensor
assembly comprising:
sensor wires;
a sensor element directly and conductively connected to the sensor
wires so as to transmit, over the sensor wires and without amplification and
without signal processing, an analog sensor signal indicative of a process
parameter sensed by the sensor element;
memory circuitry having configuration data related to the sensor
assembly; and
interface circuitry electrically connected to the memory circuitry and
reactively coupled to the sensor wires so as to transmit, over the sensor
wires, a digital communication signal indicative of the configuration data.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,757

3
Name Reference Date
Hodson US 5,162,725 Nov. 10, 1992
Halperin US 5,535,752 July 16, 1996
Bjornsson US 5,621,669 April 15, 1997
Macke US 6,559,653 B2 May 6, 2003
Watters US 6,617,962 B1 September 9, 2003
Lindmueller US 2006/0254911 A1 Nov. 16, 2006
Orth US 7,525,419 B2 April 28, 2009

Claims 16, 21, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hodson and Orth. Final Act. 7.
Claims 17 and 28–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hodson, Orth, and Lindmueller. Final Act. 9.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hodson, Orth, and Macke. Final Act. 11.
Claims 19 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hodson, Orth, and Bjornsson. Final Act. 12.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hodson, Orth, and Halperin. Final Act. 14.
Claims 22, 23, 25, and 31–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hodson, Orth, and Watters. Final Act. 15.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hodson, Orth, Watters, and Bjornsson. Final Act. 17.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 26, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Feb. 27, 2020) for their respective details.
Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,757

4
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Hodson and Orth teach or suggest
interface circuitry reactively coupled to the sensor wires so as to transmit,
over the sensor wires, a digital communication signal indicative of the
configuration data, as claim 16 requires?
2. Does the combination of Hodson, Orth, and Watters teach or
suggest transmitting, over the sensor wires, a digital communication signal
indicative of the configuration data?

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 16
Independent claim 16 recites, in pertinent part, “interface circuitry
electrically connected to the memory circuitry and reactively coupled to the
sensor wires.” The Examiner finds that Hodson teaches “a locking connector
(22) (i.e. an interface circuitry) connected to the sensor connection wires
(20) to provide individual calibration information (i.e. digital
communication) between the memory circuitry (50) and the process
transmitter (14).” Final Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that Orth teaches
“a non-volatile memory 204 in which the device settings 206 are stored. . . .
In another example configuration, the transmitter settings can be changed
using control settings transmitted over two-wire process control loop 98.”
Appellant argues, and we agree, that “nowhere does Hodson disclose”
reactive coupling to the sensor wires, as claim 16 requires. The Examiner
does not find, either in the Final Action or the Examiner’s Answer, that
Hodson or Orth teaches or suggests reactive coupling between the interface
circuitry and the sensor wires. On this record, then, we determine that the
Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,757

5
Examiner erred in finding that Hodson and Orth teach or suggest all the
limitations of independent claim 16. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of independent claim 16, or dependent claims 21, 24, and 26.
Independent claim 31
Appellant argues that the limitation “a sensor element directly and
conductively connected to the sensor wires” means that any of the leads in
the bundle of wires 20 in Hodson that are not directly and conductively
connected to the sensor element (16) cannot be considered part of the
“sensor wires” element. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant contends that since the
claim calls for interface circuitry to transmit, “over the sensor wires,” a
digital communication signal indicative of the configuration signal,
“antecedence precludes the sensor wires as being manifested as separate
wires.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant further argues that Hodson does not teach that a sensing
transducer’s sensor wires (i.e., those wires that transmit the raw sensing
signal without amplification and without signal processing) are (also) used
to transmit a digital communication signal. Appeal Br. 7. We observe that
this argument is a variant of Appellant’s first argument concerning the same
wires being used to transmit an analog signal and a digital communication
signal.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Figure 2 of Hodson
is reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,757

6

Figure 2 of Hodson is a schematic diagram of a first sensing probe
module. Hodson col. 2:7–9.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the connecting cable 20 of
Hodson, which comprises a plurality of leads (40, 46, and other leads
connected to power supply 48 and memory 50), may be equated to the
claimed (plurality of) “sensor wires.” Final Act. 7. We find that sensors 32
and 34, in combination with analog circuits 38 and 44, may be collectively
equated to the claimed “sensor element.” Id. As such, we further find that
the “sensor element” taught by Hodson transmits, over the “sensor wires,”
without amplification, and without signal processing, the claimed analog
sensor signal.
With respect to claim 31 (originally mentioned with reference to claim
23), the Examiner finds that Watters suggests a RFID chip reactively
coupled to the sensor wires so as to transmit a digital communication signal.
Final Act. 16. Appellant does not contest this finding.

Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,757

7

We therefore find that the combination of Hodson, Orth, and Watters
teaches or suggests all the limitations of independent claim 31. We will
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 31, and of
dependent claims 32–34.
Dependent claims 17-20, 22, 23, 25, 27–30, and 35
The Examiner does not find that Lindmueller remedies the
deficiencies we have identified supra in Hodson and Orth. We do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 17 and 28–30.
The Examiner does not find that Macke remedies the deficiencies we
have identified supra in Hodson and Orth. We do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 18.
The Examiner does not find that Bjornsson remedies the deficiencies
we have identified supra in Hodson and Orth. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 19 and 27.
The Examiner does not find that Halperin remedies the deficiencies
we have identified supra in Hodson and Orth. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 20.
The Examiner does not find that Watters remedies the deficiencies we
have identified supra in Hodson and Orth. We do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 22, 23, and 25.
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claim 35. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 35
over Hodson, Orth, Watters, and Bjornsson, for the reasons given supra with
respect to independent claim 31.

Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,757

8

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Hodson and Orth does not teach or suggest
interface circuitry reactively coupled to the sensor wires so as to transmit,
over the sensor wires, a digital communication signal indicative of the
configuration data, as claim 16 requires.
2. The combination of Hodson, Orth, and Watters teaches
transmitting, over the sensor wires, a digital communication signal indicative
of the configuration data.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
16, 21, 24,
26
103(a) Hodson, Orth 16, 21, 24, 26
17, 28–30 103(a) Hodson, Orth,
Lindmueller
17, 28–30
18 103(a) Hodson, Orth,
Macke
18
19, 27 103(a) Hodson, Orth,
Bjornsson
19, 27
20 103(a) Hodson, Orth,
Halperin
20
22, 23, 25,
31–34
103(a) Hodson, Orth,
Watters
31–34 22, 23, 25
35 103(a) Hodson, Orth,
Watters, Bjornsson
35
Overall
Outcome
31–35 16–30

Appeal 2020-004656
Application 15/290,757

9
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–35 is affirmed. The
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–30 is reversed.
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-IN-PART