Ex Parte Surman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201812824436 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/824,436 06/28/2010 6147 7590 10/02/2018 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Cheryl Margaret Surman 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. 235246-1 9906 EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2862 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2018 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): haeckl@ge.com gpo.mail@ge.com Lori.e.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHERYL MARGARET SURMAN, RADISLA V ALEXANDROVICH POTYRAILO, and WILLIAM GUY MORRIS Appeal2018-003183 Application 12/824,436 1 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is General Electric Company. Appeal Brief dated July 12, 2017 ("Br."), at 3. Appeal2018-003183 Application 12/824,436 1. A resonance circuit-based temperature independent pressure sensor, compnsmg: a single resonance sensor circuit; a pressure sensitive component disposed on the resonance sensor circuit; and an electromagnetic field modulator operatively coupled to the pressure sensitive component to at least partially modulate an electromagnetic field generated by the resonance sensor circuit, wherein the resonance sensor circuit is a temperature independent pressure measuring circuit, and wherein the resonance sensor circuit and the pressure sensitive component constitute a single sensor calibrated for at least one multivariate response pattern and a multivariate analysis of the at least one multivariate response pattern identifiably separates at least one of a plurality of patterns of response associated with a change in temperature and a change in pressure and quantitatively separates an effect of the temperature and an effect of the pressure, and further wherein the sensor is used to selectively quantitate pressure in the presence of variable temperature. Br. 15. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal: (1) claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-13, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Potyrailo 685 2 in view of Billeter; 3 (2) claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Potyrailo 685 in view of Billeter, and further in view of Potyrailo 996; 4 2 US 2009/0278685 Al, published November 12, 2009, to Potyrailo et al. ("Potyrailo 685"). 3 US 3,927,369, issued December 16, 1975, to Billeter et al. ("Billeter"). 4 US 2011/0101996 Al, published May 5, 2011, to Potyrailo ("Potyrailo 996"). 2 Appeal2018-003183 Application 12/824,436 (3) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Potyrailo 685 in view of Billeter, and further in view of Potyrailo 927; 5 (4) claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Potyrailo 685 in view of Billeter, and further in view of Wang; 6 (5) claims 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Potyrailo 685 in view of Billeter, and further in view of Matekovits; 7 and (6) claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Potyrailo 685 in view of Potyrailo 996, Billeter, and Bohan. 8 C. DISCUSSION 1. Rejection (1) The Examiner finds that Potyrailo 685 discloses a resonance circuit-based pressure sensor compnsmg: a single resonance sensor circuit ... ; a pressure sensitive component disposed on the resonance sensor circuit ... ; and an electromagnetic field modulator ... operatively coupled to the pressure sensitive component ... to at least partially modulate an electromagnetic field generated by the sensor circuit ... to produce a first multivariate sensor response pattern associated with a change in pressure and a second multivariate sensor response pattern associated with a change in temperature ... ; and wherein the resonance sensor circuit and the pressure sensitive component constitute a single sensor ... calibrated for at least one multivariate response pattern ... and a multivariate analysis of the at 5 US 2007/0090927 Al, published April 26, 2007, to Potyrailo et al. ("Potyrailo 927"). 6 US 2010/0021993 Al, published January 28, 2010, to Wang et al. ("Wang"). 7 US 2008/0157901 Al, published July 3, 2008, to Matekovits et al. ("Matekovits"). 8 US 2010/0280788 Al, published November 4, 2010, to Bohan et al. ("Bohan"). 3 Appeal2018-003183 Application 12/824,436 least one multivariate response pattern ... identifiably separates at least one of a plurality of patterns of response ... associated with a change in temperature ... and a change in pressure and quantitatively separates an effect of the temperature ... and an effect of the pressure ... , and further wherein the sensor is used to selectively quantitate pressure ... in the presence of variable temperature .... Final Act. 4--5 ( citations omitted). 9 The Examiner finds that Potyrailo 685 discloses a single sensor that quantitates pressure and temperature (Potyrailo 685, at ,r 51) but does not disclose that the resonance sensor circuit in the sensor is a temperature independent pressure measuring circuit as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5; see also Potyrailo 685, at ,r 57. The Examiner, however, finds that Billeter discloses a resonance sensor circuit that is a temperature independent pressure measuring circuit. Final Act. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Potyrailo 685 with a resonance sensor circuit as disclosed in Billeter "for the purposes of sensing environmental parameters independently." Final Act. 5. The Appellants argue that "Potyrailo 685 does not teach or suggest a 'single sensor that selectively quantitates pressure independent of a variation in temperature', as noted by the Examiner ... and Billeter does not supply the deficiency." Br. 8 (citing Final Act. 5, 13-15). 10 9 Final Office Action dated February 16, 2017. 10 The quoted language does not appear on pages 5, 13, 14, and/or 15 of the Final Office Action dated February 16, 2017. That is, the Examiner did not state, on any of those pages, that "Potyrailo 685 does not teach or suggest a 'single sensor that selectively quantitates pressure independent of a variation in temperature,"' as argued by the Appellants. See Br. 8. 4 Appeal2018-003183 Application 12/824,436 In response, the Examiner notes that "claims 1 and 19 do not recite 'a single sensor ... selectively quantitates pressure independent of a variation in temperature'. Rather, the claims recite 'single sensor ... selectively quantitates pressure in the presence of variable in temperature'." Ans. 4. 11 The Examiner finds that Potyrailo 685 discloses that limitation. Ans. 4. The Appellants do not offer a response. As for Billeter, the Appellants argue that Billeter discloses a pressure sensor that uses two coils in the sensor system to achieve the sensor response, in contrast to the single sensor of claims 1 and 19. Br. 9. The Examiner, however, finds that Billeter does not disclose a pressure sensor that uses "two coils" in the sensor system to achieve the sensor response, as argued by the Appellants. Ans. 6. Notably, we have been unable to locate a disclosure of "two coils" in Billeter. The Appellants argue that Billeter teaches a multiple property measurement microwave sensor that employs a single hollow cavity resonating at a plurality of frequency modes to provide simultaneous measurements of a corresponding plurality of parameters. Br. 9. Therefore, the Appellants argue that Billeter teaches that pressure and temperature can be continuously monitored simultaneously as each relates to a distinct mode of cavity resonance. Br. 10. The Appellants also argue that the use of Billeter' s sensor requires numerous measurements involving movement or deflection of a portion of the wall, cavity size, and a plurality of frequency modes for continuous and simultaneous measurement of pressure and temperature. Br. 10. The Appellants argue that such a complex sensor directly contrasts with the sensor of claims 1 and 19, which is a 11 Examiner's Answer dated October 6, 2017. 5 Appeal2018-003183 Application 12/824,436 simple device that precludes the numerous measurements taught by Billeter. Br. 10. In response, the Examiner correctly concludes that claims 1 and 19 do not exclude continuous, simultaneous measurement of physical properties or exclude the numerous measurements said to be made with Billeter's sensor. Ans. 7, 8, 9- 10. In other words, claims 1 and 19 do not exclude a structure, such as the hollow cavity of Billeter, which resonates at a plurality of frequency modes to provide simultaneous measurement of a plurality of properties. The Appellants do not offer an interpretation of claim 1 that demonstrates otherwise. Finally, the Appellants argue that "the sensor and sensor system of claims 1 and 19 provide the unexpected result of separating patterns of response associated with a change in temperature and a change in pressure using the multivariable response of the sensor." Br. 10 ( emphasis omitted). For support, the Appellants direct our attention to paragraph 64 of the Specification. Br. 10. Paragraph 64 of the Specification, however, does not disclose that the claimed sensor exhibits "unexpected" results. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCP A 1973) (in order for a showing of "unexpected results" to be probative evidence of non-obviousness, the applicant must establish that the difference between the results obtained through the claimed invention and those of the prior art would not have been expected by one skilled in the art at the time of invention). In sum, the Appellants do not identify a reversible error in the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 19. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 19 is sustained. The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of claims 3-5, 7, 9-13, 17, 18, 20, and 21. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 9-13, 17, 18, 20, and 21 also is sustained. 6 Appeal2018-003183 Application 12/824,436 2. Rejections (2}---(5) The Appellants argue that Potyrailo 996, Potyrailo 927, Wang, and Matekovits do not overcome the deficiencies in the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Br. 11-12. For the reasons set forth above, the Appellants do not identify any deficiencies in the obviousness rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Potyrailo 996, Potyrailo 927, Wang, and/or Matekovits. Therefore, the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 6, 8, and 14--16 are sustained. 3. Rejection ( 6) Similar to the Appellants' argument in response to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 19, the Appellants argue that Billeter teaches that pressure and temperature can be continuously monitored simultaneously as each relates to a distinct mode of cavity resonance, which is unlike claim 22. Br. 12. The Examiner concludes that claim 22 does not exclude continuous, simultaneous measurement of physical properties. Ans. 12. The Appellants do not offer an interpretation of claim 22 that demonstrates otherwise. The Appellants also argue that Bohan is relied on to teach "a single sensor .. . that identifiebly [sic] separates ... at least one of a plurality of patterns of response associated with a change in temperature ... and change in pressure .... " Br. 12. The Appellants argue that Bohan, however, discloses a multi-sensor system. Br. 12. In response, the Examiner finds that Bohan discloses a sensor in a "single sensor housing" and thus discloses a single sensor within the scope of claim 22. Ans. 14. The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's finding. The Examiner also finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that Potyrailo 685 and Billeter each disclose a single sensor. Ans. 15. 7 Appeal2018-003183 Application 12/824,436 In sum, the Appellants do not identify a reversible error in the obviousness rejection of claim 22. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 22 is sustained. The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of claims 23 or 24. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 23 and 24 also is sustained. C. DECISION The Examiner's decision 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)(l ). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation