Ex Parte Lux et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

14124110 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/124,110 03/17/2014
24972 7590 04/03/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander Lux
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.
BOSC.P8089US/l 1603363 7880
EXAMINER
TRAN, TRAN M.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER LUX and MARTIN MAST
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110 1
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BRIAND. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 11-13, 15, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ROBERT BOSCH
GmbH. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants describe the invention as relating to a pressure sensor
mechanism that can be applied over a wide sensor range. Spec. 4:28-32.
The sensor could be used, for example, to measure pressures in a motor
vehicle. Id. Claim 11, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain
key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
11. A pressure sensor system for acquiring a pressure of
a fluid medium in a measurement chamber, comprising:
a sensor housing,
at least one sensor element that is situated on a bearer such
that the sensor element can be exposed to the medium in order to
measure the pressure of the medium,
an evaluation circuit adapted for outputting a signal that
indicates the pressure acting on the sensor element, the
evaluation circuit being situated outside the medium and being
energetically connected to the sensor element by one of: an
inductive coupling, a capacitive electrical coupling, an exchange
of electromagnetic signals, or an exchange of magnetic signals,
a pressure connection to which the bearer of the sensor
element is connected so as to be sealed against the medium,
and
a housing base that is situated on an end of the pressure
connection, the bearer of the sensor element being provided on
the pressure connection such that the bearer stands out from a
plane of the housing base, or is situated in a plane of the housing
base,
wherein the bearer is connected to the sensor housing such
that the evaluation circuit is situated inside the sensor housing,
2 In this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action dated May 18, 2016
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed October 19, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer dated February 10, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief
filed April 10, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110
wherein the bearer is interposed between the sensor
element and the evaluation circuit by having a material of the
bearer interposed between the sensor element and the evaluation
circuit, and
wherein the energy connection between the evaluation
circuit and the sensor element is implemented through the
material of the bearer.
Appeal Br. Claim App 'x. 1.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Hauer et al., ("Hauer") US 7,950,287 B2
Reinmuth US 2010/0327883 Al
Guenschel et al., ("Guenschel") DE 10 2007 052 364
REJECTIONS
May 31, 2011
Dec. 30, 2010
May 7, 2009
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Reinmuth in view of Hauer. Final Act 2-3.
Rejection 2. Claims 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Reinmuth in view of Hauer and further in view of
Guenschel. Id. at 5.
Rejection 3. Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reinmuth in view of Hauer. Id at 8. 3
3 The May 18, 2016, Office Action Summary states that claims 11-20 are
rejected, and Appellants state that rejection of claims 11-20 should be
reversed. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 14 and 16, however, were cancelled at least
as of Appellants' April 15, 2016 Amendment. Moreover, Appellants do not
3
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner also included a rejection of
claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Id. at 2. Because the Examiner entered an
amendment after final relating to the rejection (amending claim 15 so it no
longer depends upon a cancelled claim) and because neither the Examiner
nor the Appellants address this rejection, our understanding is that this
rejection has been withdrawn. We therefore do not address this rejection.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner's rejections.")). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants do not argue the rejections separately but present separate
arguments for claim 11 and dependent claim 18. See Appeal Br. 3, 7.
Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013), we limit our discussion to claims 11 and 18, and all other claims on
appeal stand or fall with claim 11.
list claims 14 and 16 in the Appeal Brief Claims Appendix. Accordingly,
we do not consider claims 14 or 16 on appeal.
4
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner generally finds that Reinmuth
teaches a pressure system within the scope of the claims. Final Act. 3-5
(citing Reinmuth). Most pertinent to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner
finds that Reinmuth does not "explicitly" teach a sensor housing but
"teaches a large containing chamber that contains both the sensor chamber
and hermitically sealed chamber." Id. at 4. The Examiner further finds that
Hauer teaches a housing and concludes that it would have been obvious to
enclose Reinmuth's pressure sensor (as depicted, for example, in Figure 1 of
Reinmuth) "in order to protect the sensor from physical impacts." Id.
The Examiner also finds that, with respect to claim 11 's recited
"pressure connection," Reinmuth teaches a "housing extension on top of
sensor chamber 18 that forms an opening that would allow the inside of the
chamber 18 to be connected to the environment." Id. The Examiner further
finds that Hauer teaches a pressure supply opening and that, in view of this
teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have "realized that the
housing extension as taught by Reinmuth would constitute a pressure supply
opening in order to connect the sensor chamber to the environment." Id. at
4--5. The Examiner further finds that Reinmuth teaches a housing base-
"the part of the walls that make up sensor chamber 18 and is connected to
the opening above the chamber." Id. at 3--4 (parenthesis omitted).
Appellants argue that a person of skill in the art would not have
incorporated Guenschel' s housing into Reinmuth and that combining
Reinmuth and Guenschel would not meet the recitations of claim 11.
Appeal Br. 3---6. These arguments are not persuasive because Examiner's
rejection of claim 11 is based on Reinmuth and Hauer-not Guenschel.
Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection actually
5
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110
is based on Guenschel because it refers to "housing cover 31" and "housing
cover 31" is an element of Guenschel rather than Hauer or Reinmuth. Reply
Br. 2. Hauer, however, also teaches a housing cover. See, e.g., Hauer 2: 15-
18. To the extent the Examiner erred in referring to "3 1," the error is
harmless because, overall, the Examiner was very clear in both the Final
Rejection and the Answer that the rejection of claim 11 is based on Hauer
and Reinmuth. See, e.g., Final Act. 3, Ans. 2 (responding that Guenschel
was not relied upon).
Appellants also argue that placing Hauer' s housing inside of
Reinmuth's chamber would likewise cause problems. Appeal Br. 4--5. The
Examiner, however, finds that Reinmuth "teaches a large containing
chamber .... " Final Act. 4. The Examiner's position is therefore best
understood as being that Reinmuth teaches a sensor housing but does not
"directly or explicitly" refer to this structure with the word "housing." Final
Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Hauer merely to establish that the structure
of Reinmuth (which, in fact, includes a housing) may properly be named a
housing. Ans. 2. Contrary to arguments by Appellants (Reply Br. 3--4), the
Examiner's position is reasonably clear. Appellants appear to recognize as
much. See Appeal Br. 5 ("Even if one recognizes a sensor housing in
Reinmuth, which would make housings 31 and 2 of the secondary references
superfluous .... ").
Moreover, on the technical merits, the Specification defines "housing"
broadly: "[a] sensor housing is to be understood as a housing that completely
or partially surrounds, or accommodates, the evaluation circuit."
Spec. 6:23-25 (emphasis added). Contrary to Appellants' arguments (see,
e.g., Appeal Br. 6), a housing need not completely enclose the sensor. Thus,
6
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110
a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Reimnuth discloses a
housing as recited in claim 11. Reinmuth Fig. 1.
Appellants also argue that Reinmuth' s separating wall 13 cannot be
both the "housing base" and "the support recited in claim 11." Appeal Br. 5.
Claim 11 does not recite a "support," but we presume Appellants are
referring to claim 11 's "bearer." The Examiner does not contend that
separating wall 13 of Reinmuth corresponds to claim 11 's recited "housing
base." Rather, the Examiner finds that the recited housing base corresponds
to "the part of the walls that make up sensor chamber 18 and is connected to
the opening above the chamber" (as depicted in Reinmuth Figure 1 ). Final
Act. 3--4 (parenthesis omitted). Appellants do not persuasively argue that
this particular determination is in error. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at
107 5 ("the Board will generally not reach the merits of any issues not
contested by an applicant.").
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has not established that the
references teach a "pressure connection to which the bearer of the sensor
element is connected so as to be sealed against the medium" as recited in
claim 11. Appeal Br. 6-7. The Examiner, however, finds that the
connection between the partition wall (equated with the "bearer") and the
pressure opening on top of chamber 18 (as depicted in Reinmuth Figure 1)
"is established via the side walls of the framed housing." Ans. 3; see also
Final Act. 3--4. Appellants do not appear to dispute this finding, and
Appellants' argument acknowledges that this connection provides sealing.
Appeal Br. 6 ("the sealing in Reinmuth is accomplished by the cooperation
of wall 13 with the sidewalls of sensor 1 O"). Appellants' arguments
regarding claim 1 therefore do not identify reversible error.
7
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110
Claim 18 recites, "[ t ]he pressure sensor system accord to claim 11,
wherein a further pressurized medium is situated in the sensor housing, so
that a counter-pressure can be applied to the bearer of the sensor element,
and the pressure sensor system is adapted for a differential pressure
measurement." Appeal Br. Claims App. 2. The Examiner rejects this claim
as being unpatentable as obvious over Reinmuth, Hauer, and Guenschel.
Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that the references do not teach a pressurized
medium that can apply a counter-pressure. Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 5---6.
The preponderance of the evidence does not support Appellants' argument.
The Examiner finds that Reinmuth teaches two chambers with "different
environments" and measuring pressure difference. Ans. 3--4. By referring
to "different environments" in the two sensor chambers, Reinmuth suggests
that each chamber will have a unique pressure and that there is therefore a
pressurized medium in the sensor housing that can apply a counter-pressure.
This understanding of Reinmuth is reinforced by Guenschel which teaches,
"[a ]nother possibility is ... there is a reference pressure within the housing
formed from the housing base and housing cover." Guenschel i-f 14. The
Examiner determines that a person of ordinary skill would have combined
Reinmuth with this teaching from Guenschel "in order to determine the
differential pressure," and Appellants do not persuasively dispute this
rationale. Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 3--4.
Because Appellants' arguments do not identify harmful error, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections.
8
Appeal2017-007373
Application 14/124,110
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of
claims 11-13, 15, and 17-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9