WENZEL, Karl et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 12, 2019

14701776 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2019)

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.
14/701,776 05/01/2015 Karl WENZEL BOSC.P9401US/1000343077 3566
24972 7590 12/12/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
LARKIN, DANIEL SEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2019 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte KARL WENZEL and METIN GUERER

________________

Appeal 2019-002475
Application 14/701,776
Technology Center 2800
________________

BEFORE KAREN M. HASTINGS, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claims 1, 3–7 and 9–12 as being
indefinite. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. §
1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH
(Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-002475
Application 14/701,776

2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A sensor device for sensing a humidity of a fluid medium,
the sensor device comprising:
a housing in which there is a measuring space;
a humidity module that is at least partially disposed
within the measuring space and that includes a humidity sensor
element for sensing the humidity of the fluid medium in the
measuring space, and a first temperature sensor for sensing a
temperature of the fluid medium in the measuring space; and
an evaluation unit configured to:
output a first temperature signal of the first temperature
sensor that indicates the temperature of the fluid medium in the
measuring space;
determine a difference between a second temperature
signal and the first temperature signal by subtracting the second
temperature signal from the first temperature signal;
correct a humidity signal of the humidity sensor element
using the difference between the second temperature signal and
the first temperature signal and based on a ratio of an
uncorrected saturation vapor pressure to a corrected saturation
vapor pressure, wherein the second temperature signal indicates
a temperature of the fluid medium in a region of the sensor
device that is thermally decoupled from the evaluation unit; and
output the corrected humidity signal indicating the
humidity of the fluid medium in the measuring space.

(Appeal Br. 7, Claims Appendix).

Independent claim 7 is directed to “a method of [using] a sensor
device” corresponding to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8, Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2019-002475
Application 14/701,776

3
OPINION
Claims are definite if they
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. It is here where the
definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed—not
in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art
and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art.

In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1046-47 (CCPA 1971). See also,
Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2010); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (The test for definiteness is whether “those skilled in the art
would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification”).
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood what is being claimed. A preponderance of the
evidence supports Appellant’s assertions that the Examiner’s rejection
should be reversed.
The Examiner’s position that the Magnus formula described in the
Specification may only be used with an actual/absolute temperature, and any
other use of the formula is indefinite as inconsistent with the Magnus
formula (Ans. 6; Spec. 6), is not well-founded in this case.
As Appellant explains, the Specification states that the calculations for
a corrected saturation vapor temperature use the temperature difference and
“can be performed on the basis of the Magnus formula” (Spec. 6:5–10;
Appeal 2019-002475
Application 14/701,776

4
Appeal Br. 4, 5; Reply Br. 2). The Examiner’s position that the use of a
temperature difference would result in an “illogical and incorrect value for
the saturation vapor pressure” (Ans. 6) is not on point because Appellant is
using the temperature difference to calculate a corrected vapor pressure, not
the vapor pressure per se. The Specification (and each independent claim)
explicitly states the ratio of the uncorrected vapor pressure to the corrected
vapor pressure is then used to calculate a corrected humidity (Spec. 6:10–
15). The Examiner has not explained sufficiently why one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have understood that the algorithms, as explained in the
Specification, could be used in the manner described in the Specification to
calculate a corrected humidity.
In light of these circumstances, we agree with Appellant that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim language in light of
the Specification, as discussed throughout the prosecution history.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112 rejection of all the claims
based on indefiniteness.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 9–12 112 indefiniteness  1, 3–7, 9–
12

REVERSED