Ex Parte Ahmed

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2011

10353110 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2011)

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.
10/353,110 01/28/2003 Osman Ahmed 2003 P 01153 US 6200
7590 07/28/2011
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
JARRETT, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte OSMAN AHMED
____________

Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a controller arrangement for a
building system including a first module, a second module, and a controller.
The first module includes a first wireless communication device and a first
microelectromechanical (MEM) sensor device operable to generate a
process value representative of a concentration of a first set of gaseous
substances within a fume hood. The second module has a second wireless
communication device and is operably coupled to an actuation element. The
controller, which may be part of the first module, second module, neither or
both, is operable to obtain the process value from the first module and
provide a control output to the second module. The controller is further
operable to communicate with at least one of the sensor module and the
actuator module using wireless communications. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A controller arrangement for a building system, the
arrangement comprising:

a first module comprising a first wireless communication
device and a first microelectromechanical sensor device
operable to generate a process value representative of a
concentration of a first set of gaseous substances within a fume
hood;

a second module having a second wireless
communication device, the second module operably coupled to
an actuation element; and

a controller operable to obtain the process value from the
first module and provide a control output to the second module,
the controller further operable to communicate with at least one
Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

3
of the first module and the second module using wireless
communications.

Examiner’s Rejections1
Claims 1-18, 20-23, and 26-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Graviton (WO 00/54237).
Claims 6, 8, 19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Graviton and Sharp (US 6,609,967 B1).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Graviton and Osann (US 2003/0050737 A1).
Although Appellant indicates in the Brief that the rejection of claims
11-18 and 20-23 is not appealed (see Br. 2-3), the Notice of Appeal
nonetheless indicates that claims 1-30 are appealed. Compare Notice of
Appeal filed Dec. 11, 2006 with Br. 2-3. Since Appellant does not submit
any arguments regarding claims 11-18 and 20-23, we therefore summarily
sustain the rejection of those claims.2

1 Appellant contends that claims 19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graviton alone (Br. 6), and the
Examiner appears to agree. See Ans. 2 (confirming Appellant’s statement of
the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal as correct); see also Ans.
23. However, such a rejection is not found in the last (non-final) Rejection
or the Examiner’s Answer and is therefore not before us.
2 See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 8th ed.,
Rev. 8, July 2010 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not
addressed in the appellant's brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily
sustained by the Board.”).
Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

4
Claim Groupings
In view of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1, 6, and 19. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Graviton describes “a first
microelectromechanical sensor device operable to generate a process value
representative of a concentration of a first set of gaseous substances within a
fume hood” as recited in claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Graviton describes “an air
flow sensor operable to generate an air flow process value” as recited in
claim 6?
(3) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Graviton and Sharp would have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art that
“the microelectromechanical sensor device is disposed within a fume hood”
as recited in claim 19?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the last (non-
final) Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer as our own.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

5
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).

Anticipation
For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102,
every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single
reference. However, this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Obviousness
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, and 26-30
Appellant contends that Graviton does not describe “a first
microelectromechanical sensor device operable to generate a process value
representative of a concentration of a first set of gaseous substances within a
fume hood” as recited in claim 1. Br. 8. The Examiner finds that the gas
concentration sensor of Graviton, which can be used in a localized space, is
a first microelectromechanical sensor device within the meaning of claim 1.
The Examiner also finds that the claim term “operable to generate a process
Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

6
value … within a fume hood” only requires that the sensor is capable of
generating a process value when placed under a fume hood, not that the
sensor is actually located and operating under a fume hood. Ans. 3, 20.
Appellant contends that the gas concentration sensor of Graviton is not
operable to generate a process value representative of gas concentration
within a fume hood. Br. 9-10.
We find that the claim term “operable to generate a process value
representative of a concentration of a first set of gaseous substances within a
fume hood” only requires that the sensor device, when placed within a fume
hood, is capable of generating a process value representative of a
concentration of a first set of gaseous substances within a fume hood.
Further, Appellant has not provided evidence to support Appellant’s
contention that no sensor in Graviton has a physical configuration that is
operable to generate a process value representative of a gas concentration
within a fume hood. Br. 9-10. We find that the Examiner has presented
evidence to show that the sensor described by Graviton is capable of being
used in a fume hood. Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that
the gas concentration sensor of Graviton, when placed within a fume hood,
is capable of generating a process value representative of a concentration of
a first set of gaseous substances within the fume hood.
The Examiner finds that Graviton describes the limitations of claim 1.
Ans. 4-5. Appellant contends that the sensors, networks, and network
connections described by Graviton are so broad and all encompassing as to
lack any real teaching value. Br. 11-15. However, Appellant has failed to
provide evidence or persuasive argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding
that Graviton describes the limitations of claim 1.
Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

7
Appellant has not provided arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, and 26-30. We sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9,
10, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Section 102 rejection of claims 6 and 8
Appellant contends that Graviton describes over 626 possible
combinations of sensors, configured countless ways, that could be
employed. Appellant also contends that Graviton does not disclose the
combination of a gas concentration level sensor and an air flow sensor as
claimed. Br. 16-17. The Examiner finds that Graviton describes the
combination of a gas concentrations level sensor and an air flow sensor as
claimed. Ans. 6-7, 22. We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
We sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Section 103 rejection of claims 19, 24, and 25 as being unpatentable
over Graviton and Sharp
Appellant indicates that “Graviton is discussed at length in the prior
section of this argument.” Br. 22. In the prior section, Appellant contends
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the
system of Graviton for use in a fume hood. Br. 18-19. However, we find
that the gas concentration sensor of Graviton, when placed within a fume
hood, is capable of generating a process value representative of a
concentration of a first set of gaseous substances within the fume hood as
discussed in the analysis of claim 1.
Appellant further contends that there is no motivation or suggestion to
use a wireless system of Graviton to monitor fume hood gases. Br. 19-21.
Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

8
The Examiner finds that Graviton teaches connecting the sensor to the
network using a wireless connection. Ans. 23. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings. Regarding claim 25, Appellant adds that Graviton
does not disclose a second damper, let alone controlling another damper
based on air flow measurement. Br. 21. The Examiner, however, finds that
that controlling a second damper to maintain a pressure equilibrium would
have been obvious (Ans. 23-34). We are unpersuaded of error in these
findings.
Appellant also contends that there is no motivation or suggestion to
modify Graviton with Sharp in such a manner as to arrive at the claimed
invention. In particular, Appellant contends that nothing in Graviton or
Sharp suggests that MEMs sensors are useful in a fume hood, or that using
sensors with wireless communications are useful in a fume hood. Br. 23-26.
The Examiner finds that Graviton teaches wireless MEMs sensors that detect
gas concentration levels in a localized space such as a room and sends a
process value to a controller that provides a signal to an actuator. Ans. 4-5.
The Examiner further finds that Sharp teaches a fume hood exhaust system
with an actuator that responds to information from sensors. Ans. 14-15.
We find that using the wireless MEMs gas concentration sensor,
controller, and actuator of Graviton in the fume hood exhaust system of
Sharp is the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
that yields the predictable result of a fume hood exhaust system that
responds to gas concentration information from wireless sensors.
We sustain the rejection of claims 19, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

9
Section 103 rejection of claims 6 and 8
Appellant has not provided arguments for separate patentability of
claims 6 and 8. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claim 10
Appellant has not provided arguments for separate patentability of
claim 10. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) The Examiner did not err in finding that Graviton describes “a
first microelectromechanical sensor device operable to generate a process
value representative of a concentration of a first set of gaseous substances
within a fume hood” as recited in claim 1.
(2) The Examiner did not err in finding that Graviton describes “an
air flow sensor operable to generate an air flow process value” as recited in
claim 6.
(3) The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
Graviton and Sharp would have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art that
“the microelectromechanical sensor device is disposed within a fume hood”
as recited in claim 19.

Appeal 2009-009626
Application 10/353,110

10
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Graviton is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6, 8, 19, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Graviton and Sharp is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Graviton and Osann is affirmed.
We summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-18 and
20-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc