Ex Parte Hourne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2018

13940895 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018)

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.
13/940,895 07/12/2013 Xavier HOURNE 0563-1229 2627
466 7590 03/12/2018
YOUNG fr THOMPSON
EXAMINER
209 Madison Street KINGSTON, SHAWNA M
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2018 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
y andtpair @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XAVIER HOURNE, CYRIL ROBIN, and JOEL CARNIAUX
Appeal 2017-006109
Application 13/940,895
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Continental
Automotive France and Continental Automotive GmbH. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006109
Application 13/940,895
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to a device for capacitive detecting of a
user’s presence. Spec. 1,1. 1—2,1. 3.
Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are the only independent claims.
1. A device (D’) for detecting presence of a user, comprising:
a connection to the electrical ground (14);
an electrode (12);
control means (13’) of the electrode;
a conducting element (11), connected to the connection to the
electrical ground (14);
a first switching means (II) between the conducting element (11)
and the connection to the electrical ground (14), said first
switching means (II) having a closed position in which the
conducting element (11) is connected to said connection to the
electrical ground (14) and an open position in which the
conducting element (11) and said connection to the electrical
ground (14) are disconnected;
first means (16) for selecting the position of the first switching
means (II);
a second switching means (12) between the conducting element
(11) and the electrode (12) having a closed position in which the
conducting element (11) is connected to the electrode (12) and
an open position in which the conducting element (11) and the
electrode (12) are disconnected; and
second means (16’) for selecting the position of the second
switching means (12).
6. A method for configuring a door handle (10) of an
automotive vehicle, the handle (10) comprising
a first exterior surface (SI) directed toward the door,
2
Appeal 2017-006109
Application 13/940,895
a second exterior surface (S2), opposite the first exterior surface
(SI) and covered by a coating (P, 20), and
a detection device (D’), comprising
a connection (14) to the electrical ground,
control means (13’),
an electrode (12) connected to the control means (13 ’) and
a face of which is directed towards the first exterior surface
(SI), and
a conducting element (11) connected to the connection
(14) to the electrical ground, a face of which is directed
towards the second exterior surface (S2),
the method comprising the step of:
if the coating is of the metallic type (20), the link between the
conducting element (11) and the connection (14) to the electrical
ground is disconnected.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Pang et al. (US 6,847,289 B2; Jan. 25, 2005) (“Pang”).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner cites Pang’s first
electrode 11 as teaching the claimed “electrode” and a conductor connecting
first electrode 11 to first analyzer unit 14 and ground as teaching the claimed
“conducting element.” Final Act. 3 (citing Pang, 2:55—57, Figs. 7, 13). The
Examiner also takes the position that Pang’s switches 64, 66 “hav[e] a
closed position in which the conducting element is connected to the
3
Appeal 2017-006109
Application 13/940,895
electrode, and an open position in which the conducting element and the
electrode are disconnected.” Ans. 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
mapping of Pang’s elements to the limitations recited in claim 1 is deficient
with respect to “a second switching means (12) between the conducting
element (11) and the electrode (12),'” as recited in independent claim 1. See
Reply Br. 7—8 (emphasis added). Appellants present other arguments based
on “hypothesizing” which elements of Pang are mapped to the “conducting
element” and “electrode” recited in claim 1. See also Reply Br. 4—9
(arguing “hypotheses” A through E regarding the Examiner’s mapping to
Pang). We are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1 because the mapping set forth in the Final Office Action and the Answer
does not address how the “second switching means” should be construed so
as to be disclosed, expressly or inherently, by the cited teachings of Pang.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
and dependent claims 2—5.
Claims 6—10
Independent claim 6 recites, inter alia, “an electrode (12) connected to
the control means (13') and a face of which is directed towards the first
exterior surface (SI),” and “conducting element (11) connected to the
connection (14) to the electrical ground, a face of which is directed towards
the second exterior surface (S2).” The Examiner cites Pang’s first
electrode 11 as teaching the “electrode” as recited in claim 6 and Pang’s
second electrode 12 as teaching the “conducting element” as recited in
claim 6. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Pang col. 3,11. 3—7).
Appellants argue: “In stark contrast to PANG, the conducting
element of the Appellants’ invention may be [i] disconnected from the
4
Appeal 2017-006109
Application 13/940,895
ground and [ii] connected to the electrodef]” App. Br. 16. The first portion
of this argument (i) is not persuasive because the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Pang discloses metallic coating 62 for handle 10 and switch 66
for disconnecting second electrode 12 from ground 26. Final Act. 7 (citing
Pang, 3:39-57, Fig. 13) (finding Pang’s metallic coating and switch form a
“link between the conducting element [i.e., Pang’s second electrode 12] and
electrical ground [is] disconnected”). The second portion of this argument
(ii) is not commensurate in scope with independent claim 6 because the
claim does not require that the “conducting element” is connected to the
“electrode.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 and dependent claims
7—10, not separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6—10 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5