Ex Parte Heissler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 18, 2009

11482679 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GUENTHER HEISSLER
____________

Appeal 2009-006385
Application 11/482,679
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: August 18, 2009
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 12-16 (Final Office Action
Appeal 2009-006385
Application 11/482,679

2
(“Final”, mailed Dec. 12, 2007)1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and is
reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (“Br.”), filed Jun.
10, 2008:
1. A pressure switch, comprising a housing; a plunger
element located in said housing; a first elastic element providing a spring
force against which said plunger element is movable; contacts provided on
said plunger element, said first elastic element being located on a side of
said plunger element selected from the group consisting of a side facing
toward a media connection and a side facing away from the media
connection; and a second elastic element providing a spring force against
which said plunger element is movable, said first and second elastic
elements being configured so that said spring forces of said first and second
elastic elements, against which said plunger element is movable, are
cumulative.

Appellant requests review of the sole ground of rejection (Br. 5):
claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 12-162 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Shen,
US 2005/0279413 A1, published Dec. 22, 2005.

1 Claims 5-7, 10, and 11 are allowed. (Br. 3; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”),
mailed Sep. 19, 2008, 2 § (3).)
2 We note that the Examiner incorrectly included claims 10 and 11 in the
statement of the ground of rejection. (Final 2; see also, Ans. 3.) Claim 10 is
an independent claim; claim 11 depends from claim 10. Therefore, the
Examiner also incorrectly identified these claims as “objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim.” (Final 4.)
Appeal 2009-006385
Application 11/482,679

3
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that
Shen discloses a pressure switch having first and second elastic elements
which provide cumulative spring forces against which a plunger element is
movable?
We answer this question in the negative.
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. The Examiner found that Shen discloses
a pressure switch, comprising a housing [10, 30]; a plunger
element [50] located in the housing; a first elastic element [52]
providing a spring force against which the plunger element is
movable . . . and a second elastic element [44] providing a spring
force against which the plunger element is movable, the first and
second elastic elements being configured so that the spring forces
of the first and second elastic elements, against which the
plunger element is movable, are cumulative.

(Final 2-3 (referencing Shen Fig. 2); see also, Ans. 3.)
2. Appellant’s sole argument in traversing the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection is that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that
“the spring forces of [Shen] springs 43 and 44 are cumulative.” (Br. 6.)
3. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument by pointing
out that the rejection is not based on Shen springs 43 and 44, but on a
finding that Shen “springs [52 and 44] generate upward reaction forces,
which are cumulative.” (Ans. 4 (bracketing in original).)
4. Appellant has not attempted to refute the Examiner’s finding
with respect to Shen springs 52 and 44. (See generally, Br.)3

3 We note that Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2009-006385
Application 11/482,679

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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). Therefore, we look to Appellant’s Brief to show error in the
proffered prima facie case. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
ANALYSIS
Appellant has not identified error in the factual findings relied upon
by the Examiner in rejecting the claims. Nor has Appellant shown that the
relied-upon factual findings are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 12-16 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

PL Initial:
sld

STIKER, STRIKER & STENBY
103 EAST NECK ROAD
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743