Ex Parte Agnew

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

13057827 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/057,827 02/07/2011
25944 7590 05/27/2016
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerard D. Agnew
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.
148510 5763
EXAMINER
GERIDO, DWAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1797
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERARD D. AGNEW1
Appeal2015-000995
Application 13/057,827
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETERF. KRATZ andJEFFREYR. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 18-21, 26, 27, 31-34 and 36-39. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies LG Fuel Cell Systems Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1. We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed Feb. 7, 2011; Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Feb. 24, 2014; Examiner's Answer
("Ans."); and Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-000995
Application 13/057,827
BACKGROUND
The subject matter involved in this appeal relates to methods for
inferring temperature in an enclosed volume. Spec. 1. Sole independent
Claim 18 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
18. A method for inferring temperature in an enclosed
volume, the enclosed volume containing a fuel/oxidant mixture
with a predetermined auto-ignition temperature or being
supplied with a fuel and an oxidant to form a fuel/oxidant
mixture with the predetermined auto-ignition temperature in the
enclosed volume, the method comprising:
(i) placing at least one wire in the enclosed volume, the at
least one wire having a transition temperature at which an
identifiable property of the at least one wire changes from a
first identifiable state to a second identifiable state, wherein
the materials of the at least one wire are selected such
that the transition temperature of the at least one wire is at or
above the predetermined auto-ignition temperature of the
fuel/ oxidant mixture,
the first identifiable state is observed at a temperature
below the predetermined auto-ignition temperature of the
fuel/ oxidant mixture, and
second identifiable state is observed at a temperature at
or above the predetermined auto-ignition temperature of the
fuel/oxidant mixture; and
(ii) determining if the identifiable property of the at least
one wire has changed from the first identifiable state to the
second identifiable state and hence if the temperature in the
enclosed volume is at or above the predetermined auto-ignition
temperature of the fuel/ oxidant mixture,
wherein:
the identifiable property of the at least one wire is a
change in electrochemical state,
2
Appeal2015-000995
Application 13/057,827
the first identifiable state is an oxidized state and the
second identifiable state is a reduced state in which (i) the
change in electrochemical state of the at least one wire from the
first identifiable state to the second identifiable state involves
determining a color change of the at least one wire in which the
color change is determined by a determining device or (ii) the
change in electrochemical state of the at least one wire from the
first identifiable state to the second identifiable state involves
determining a change in resistivity in the at least one wire in
which the wire changes from being electrically resistive in the
first identifiable state to being more electrically conductive in
the second identifiable state.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintained the following grounds of rejection: 2
I. Claims 18, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 36-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) or 103(a) as unpatentable over Willett. 3
II. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Willett.
III. Claims 31-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Willett and Mergler.4
2 Ans. 2-10; Final Act. 2-9. The Examiner indicated claim 13 as allowable
but for its dependence from rejected claim 1. Final Act. 9.
3 US 2008/0226505 Al, published Sep. 18, 2008 ("Willett").
4 US 2009/0258267 Al, published Oct. 15, 2009 ("Mergler").
3
Appeal2015-000995
Application 13/057,827
DISCUSSION
I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred
in finding that Willett describes a wire which transitions from an oxidized
state to a reduced state at a temperature at or above a predetermined auto-
ignition temperature of a given fuel/oxidant mixture, App. Br. 6-7, and that
the Examiner further erred in finding that Willett describes determining
whether the wire has changed from the oxidized state to the reduced state, id.
at 9. See also Reply Br. 4. We agree.
We need only discuss claim 18, which is the sole independent claim
on appeal. There, Appellant recites a method which employs at least one
wire "selected such that the transition temperature of the at least one wire is
at or above the predetermined auto-ignition temperature of the fuel/oxidant
mixture," and determines if the wire has "changed from the first identifiable
[oxidized] state to the second identifiable [reduced] state.'' App. Br. A-1.
The Examiner's sole finding regarding the foregoing recitations-that
Willett's wire purportedly comprises "the same material as that of the instant
claims"- Final Act. 3, fails to support a determination that Willett describes
the selection of wire materials based on a predetermined auto-ignition
temperature.5 Neither does it address Appellant's claimed step of
determining whether a temperature-related change in electrochemical state
has occurred. Notably, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in
Willett, nor present any finding of fact, pertaining to a fuel/oxidant mixture
5 Appellants explain that the claimed wire is "composition-tunable" so as to
exhibit a desired transition temperature relative to the auto-ignition
temperature of a given fuel/oxidant mixture. Spec. 6.
4
Appeal2015-000995
Application 13/057,827
or the auto-ignition temperature of such a mixture-much less the selection
and use of wire materials specifically chosen to exhibit a change in
electrochemical state relative to that auto-ignition temperature. The
Examiner's alternative reasoning that one skilled in the art "would have
found it obvious to measure resistance, as conductance [and] resistance are
reciprocals," Final Act. 3, neither addresses nor cures the above-noted
deficiencies.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain Rejection I.
II, III
Because Rejections II and III are directed solely to dependent claims,
and are principally based on the same findings underlying Rejection I, we do
not sustain these rejections for the reasons set forth above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-21, 26, 27, 31-34 and
36-39 is reversed.
REVERSED
5