WENZEL, Karl et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 12, 201914701776 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation