Ex Parte Belz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613708947 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) 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. 13/708,947 12/08/2012 Jeffrey John Belz 001-3260U;60137-753PUS1 2925 82074 7590 12/27/2016 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER JELLETT, MATTHEW WILLIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): ptodocket @ cgolaw. com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY JOHN BELZ and PAUL McLENNAN Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. LEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—12, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1 We affirm. 1 This Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 6, 2014), Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 2, 2014), Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 26, 2015), Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 9, 2014), and Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed July 15, 2014). Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 The Invention The subject matter of the Application is directed to a position sensing device for an automatic plumbing fixture. Spec. [0001]. Position sensing devices utilize position sensors to determine the position of a user relative to the fixture so that when a user is closer to the fixture than a certain distance, the fixture, such as a faucet, activates and begins to dispense water. Id. at [0002], According to the Specification, a common type of position sensing device is a capacitive based sensor which detects a capacitance between a metal fixture and a person approaching or leaving the fixture, and a capacitance probe contacting the fixture can sense the capacitance and a controller can determine the position of the person based on that capacitance. Id. at [0003]. With regard to pre-existing position sensing devices, the Specification states: Existing position sensing devices use an analog sensor wire placed along the faucet pipe 30 to sense the capacitance between a user and the faucet pipe 30 and faucet 20 arrangement. The analog sensor wire is connected directly to the controller and provides the capacitance input. Because the communication wire is also the sensor wire (alternately referred to as a sensor probe), care is taken to ensure that the sensor wire contacts only the faucet pipe 30 and does not contact other conductive objects that would skew the sensor reading. Furthermore, the sensor wire must maintain contact with the faucet pipe 30 along a length of the faucet pipe 30, and thus the sensor wire is not shielded. If the sensor wire contacts conductive objects aside from the faucet pipe 30, the measurements of the capacitance probe become inaccurate. As a result, the controller of existing position sensor devices cannot be located within certain conductive housing types, such as a metal housing, or utilize conductive conduits to route the sensor wire. Id. at [0010]. 2 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 Of all claims on appeal, claim 1 is independent and reproduced below: 1. An automated plumbing fixture comprising: a pipe; a position sensing device including: a control module including a controller and a digital input connection; a capacitive position sensor module isolated from said control module, wherein said capacitive position sensor module includes a digital output and a capacitance probe contacting the pipe at a single point; and a digital communication cable connecting said digital output to said digital input. Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below: Figure 1 illustrates an automated faucet arrangement and Figure 2 illustrates the sensor module of Figure 1 in more detail. Id. at [0006], [0007], [0015]. The Specification states: In the example of Figure 1, the sensor module 40 includes a capacitive sensor that measures a capacitance between the faucet pipe 30 and a person approaching the faucet pipe 20 using a capacitance probe 42. As the faucet pipe 30 and the faucet 20 are connected and are electrically conductive, the probe 42 3 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 senses the overall capacitance between the faucet 20 and the faucet pipe 30 arrangement and a user when the probe is connected to the faucet pipe 30 and provides the sensed value to a sensor module probe input. Id. at [0011]. Sensor module 40 converts the measured capacitance value to digital form using a processor and outputs the digital value through digital communication wire 44 to controller 50. Id. at [0013]. Controller 50 determines the distance between the person and faucet 20 and outputs a valve control signal along control signal wire 52 connecting controller 50 to valve 60. Id. at [0014], The Specification further describes: Figure 2 schematically illustrates a sensor module 140 that can be used in the embodiment of Figure 1 in greater detail. The sensor module 140 includes a processor 150 and a memory 158. A capacitance probe input 152 of the processor 150 is connected to a capacitance probe 156. The capacitance probe 156 is connected to a faucet shank [130] at a single point, thereby minimizing the chances of inadvertent electrical contact altering the measured capacitance and skewing the position sensing. Id. at [0015] (emphasis added). The Prior Art The prior art relied on in rejecting the claims on appeal are: Harald Cretu-Petra Rodenbeck DuPuis US 5,694,953 US 5,868,311 US 2007/0246550 A1 US 7,849,870 B2 Dec. 9. 1997 Feb. 9, 1999 Oct. 25, 2007 Dec. 14, 2010 filed Apr. 18,2008 Jonte Davidson US 8,127,782 B2 US 8,365,767 B2 Mar. 6, 2012 Feb. 5, 2013 filed Oct. 21,2008 Applicants’Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) 4 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 The Rejections Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jonte. Final Act. 6. Claim 12 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jonte. Id. at 7. Claim 6 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jonte and Davidson. Id. at 8. Claim 7 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jonte, Davidson, and DuPuis. Id. at 9. Claims 8 and 9 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jonte and Rodenbeck. Id. at 10. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davidson and Jonte. Id. at 11. Claims 2—\ were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davidson, Jonte, and Harald. Id. at 13. Claims 7 and 9 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davidson, Jonte, and DuPuis. Id. at 15—16. Claim 7 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davidson, Jonte, Cretu-Petra, and AAPA. Id. Claim 12 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (post-AIA) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter which the inventor (post-AIA) or applicant (pre-AIA) regards as the invention. Id. at 5. 5 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 ANALYSIS A. Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 as Anticipated by Jonte Jonte is titled “MULTI-MODE HANDS FREE AUTOMATIC FAUCET.” Jonte (54). In an embodiment, Jonte discloses a hands-free faucet comprising a proximity sensor and a logical control, where a hands free mode is provided in which water flow is toggled on and off in response to the proximity sensor. Jonte, 2:39-45. Figures 5 and 7 are reproduced below: Figure 5 illustrates an embodiment of Jonte including a capacitive sensor and Figure 7 provides an exploded perspective view of such an embodiment. Jonte 4:17-20, 23-24. Claim 1 on appeal requires the capacitive position sensing module to be isolated from a control module, and also requires a capacitance probe that contacts the pipe only at a single point. By reference to Figures 5 and 7 of 6 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 Jonte, the Examiner regards element 300 as the claimed capacitive position sensing module and element 304 as the claimed control module. Ans. 3. As determined by the Examiner, capacitive position sensor module 300 includes a capacitance probe (electrode at 319) that contacts the pipe only at a single point. Id. Also according to the Examiner, as explained in the Final Rejection, capacitive position sensor module 300 and control module 304 are isolated from each other because it appears from Figure 5 that the two components are not on the same circuit board. Id. In the Examiner’s Answer, a different reasoning is provided, that because elements 300 and 304 are not plugged one into the other such that there is one integral unit, but are connected to each other by wires, they are isolated from each other. Appellants argue that the Examiner has no supporting basis to conclude that capacitive position sensor module 300 and control module 304 are not on the same circuit board. App. Br. 4. We agree. Nothing on Figure 5, as cited by Examiner, indicates that the two elements are not on the same circuit Board. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner explains, however, that it is enough to meet the “isolated” requirement if the two components are coupled by wiring. We agree. The term “isolated” is not defined in the Specification. The Specification also does not shed meaningful light in that regard. We find only one sentence in the Specification, outside of the claims, concerning the subject, and it states: “By utilizing a sensor module 140 including a processor 150, the sensor module 140 can be isolated from the controller 50 and perform simple processing on the measured values.” Spec. [0018]. “[T]he PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation during patent prosecution.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent claim language carrying a narrow 7 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 meaning, the Patent and Trademark Office should only limit the claim based on the specification and prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325; see also In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We agree with the Examiner that, under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, “isolated” encompasses separate structures that are coupled to each other by wiring. Appellants further argues that sensor 300 in Jonte is an integrated circuit chip and the pin connections illustrated in Figure 5 are the specific pin connections between the integrated circuit chip and controller 304. App. Br. 4. In that regard, Appellants further argue: “One of [ordinary] skill in the art would have understood that the standard means of connecting an integrated circuit chip to a controller is to plug the chip directly into corresponding pin slots in the controller.” Id. The argument is misdirected, because Jonte does not disclose that elements 300 and 304 are an integral structure but states, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 16), that an output of element 300 is “coupled to” controller 304, thus indicating separate but connected structures. Jonte, 13:4—10. Also, Appellants’ argument is not, on closer reading, that one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood Jonte as disclosing that elements 300 and 304 form an integral structure. In the Reply, Appellants state: “The Examiner’s interpretation that any two components, no matter how closely connected, are necessarily ‘isolated from’ each other because they are not a single integral component is unreasonable in light of the conventional meanings of the term and the specification.” Reply Br. 4. The argument is misplaced because it is not the Examiner’s position that an indirect coupling connection via wiring necessarily requires a finding that two coupled components are isolated. 8 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 Rather, under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, and in light of the lack of specific guidance in the Specification, it is reasonable to determine that isolation is provided by an indirect coupling connection. We note also that in the Reply, Appellants assert that “‘isolated’” means “‘to set or place apart. Reply Br. 4. Even assuming that assertion as true, the use of wiring to couple two parts is entirely consistent with the two parts being set or placed apart from each other, and thus isolated from each other. Appellants further argue that in Jonte, there is no capacitance probe contacting the pipe only at a single point as is required by Appellants’ claim 1. App. Br. 4—5. For reasons discussed below, the argument is without merit. The Examiner has identified element 319 of Jonte, shown in Figure 7 reproduced above, as that which connects a capacitance probe to the pipe. Ans. 3. Appellants argue, however, that element 319 does not provide contact that is a “single point” as is required by claim 1, because “element 319 is a nut.” App. Br. 4. Appellants argue: “The nut contacts the pipe along a full circumference of the pipe, as well as interlocking through multiple threads providing a significant length of electrical contact. As a nut, such as the nut 319, does not anticipate the claimed single point of contact, the feature is not anticipated.” Id. The argument is unpersuasive. The Specification provides no definition for the claim term “point.” If taken literally, a “point” would have no width, no length, no surface, and no dimension. Clearly, however, that is not what the Specification conveys. The Specification does not indicate precisely at what width, length, surface, or dimension, a point ceases to be a point but is something other than a point. What can be gleaned is the contrast provided by the Specification 9 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 relative to pre-existing prior art, in which the sensor or probe contacts the pipe not at a point but along a length of the pipe via a wire. We determine that in the context of Appellants’ Specification, the Examiner reasonably construed ‘“single point’” as “‘single location’” (Ans. 17) sufficiently broad to cover the contact between Jonte’s nut 319 and the pipe. This construction does not cover the contact that would be made between a length of wire and the pipe as is the case with the prior art described in the Specification. The contact made by Jonte’s nut 319 with the pipe is reasonably deemed as being at a single location. Appellants do not advance separate arguments with respect to claims 10 and 11, each of which depends from claim 1. Appellants do, however, argue claim 5 separately. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein said capacitive position sensor module comprises a processor operable to process a detected capacitance.” The Examiner reasoned that “[element] 300 is a processor which receives the analog capacitance signal from the electrode and processes it to send in digital form to the controller 304.” Ans. 3. The Examiner further states, “chip 300 in Jonte must process the data before it passes the information along to the controller 304.” Appellants argue that Examiner has not identified sufficient support in the record to regard chip 300 as a processor. App. Br. 4—5. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner essentially has regarded as a processor any structure that performs any function, under the name of general processing. That claim construction is unreasonably broad. It also reflects improper functional claiming, without invoking the corresponding provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (pre-AIA). In addition, Jonte itself 10 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 nowhere refers to element 300 as a processor. Rather, Jonte refers to chip 300 as a “timer” used as a capacitive sensor. Jonte, 12:66—67, 13:4—7. For the forgoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claims 1,10, and 11 are anticipated by Jonte, but have shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 5 is anticipated by Jonte. We sustain the rejection of claims 1,10, and 11. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 as anticipated by Jonte. B. Rejection of Claim 12 as Obvious over Jonte Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the capacitive position sensor module is defined by an absence of a sensor wire.” Appellants have not made any argument for claim 12 with respect to this rejection over prior art, apart from the arguments made for claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 stands or falls with claim 1. Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over Jonte. We sustain the rejection of claim 12 as obvious over Jonte. C. Rejection of Claim 6 as Obvious over Jonte and Davidson Claim 6 depends from claim 5. The deficiency of the Examiner’s discussion regarding anticipation of claim 5 by Jonte is not made up or cured by the Examiner’s discussion and application of Jonte and Davidson in the context of obviousness of claim 6. Thus, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over Jonte and Davidson. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 as obvious over Jonte and Davidson. 11 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 D. Rejection of Claim 7 as Obvious over Jonte, Davidson, and DuPuis Claim 7 depends from claim 6. The deficiency of the Examiner’s discussion regarding obviousness of claim 6 over Jonte and Davidson is not made up or cured by the Examiner’s discussion and application of Jonte, Davidson, and DuPuis in the context of obviousness of claim 7. Thus, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 7 is unpatentable as obvious over Jonte, Davidson, and DuPuis. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 7 as obvious over Jonte, Davidson, and DuPuis. E. Rejection of Claims 8 and 9 as Obvious over Jonte and Rodenbeck Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein said controller is a programmable controller and includes a rewritable memory.” Appellants have not made any argument for claim 8 with respect to this rejection over prior art, apart from the arguments made for claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 stands or falls with claim 1. Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Jonte and Rodenbeck. We sustain the rejection of claim 8 as obvious over Jonte and Rodenbeck. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further recites, “wherein said rewritable memory includes instructions operable to cause said controller to control at least one of a valve control, a solenoid, and a range determination in response to a detected distance value from said sensor module.” Appellants have not made any argument for claim 9 with respect to this rejection over prior art, apart from the arguments made for claim 1. 12 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 Accordingly, claim 8 stands or falls with claim 1. Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 9 is unpatentable as obvious over Jonte and Rodenbeck. We sustain the rejection of claim 9 as obvious over Jonte and Rodenbeck. F. Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10 as Obvious over Davidson and Jonte For this ground of rejection, the Examiner relies not on Davidson to meet the claim recitation of “a capacitance probe contacting the pipe at a single point.” Ans. 8—9. Instead, the Examiner relies on Jonte. Id. at 9. Appellants’ only argument with respect to this ground of rejection is that Jonte does not disclose a capacitance probe contacting the pipe at a single point. That argument, however, has been considered and rejected above in the analysis of claim 1 as being anticipated by Jonte. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Davidson and Jonte. We sustain this ground of rejection for claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10. G. Rejection of Claims 2-4 as Obvious over Davidson, Jonte, and Harald Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein said control module is contained within a conductive housing, and wherein said capacitive position sensor module is remote from said conductive housing.” Claim 3 depends from claim 2. Claim 4 depends not from claim 2 but claim 1, and further recites, “wherein said digital communication cable is contained within a conductive conduit.” Appellants submit no argument specifically directed to claim 4. Thus, claim 4 would stand or fall with base independent claim 1. Appellants 13 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 submit no argument specifically directed to claim 3. Thus, claim 3 would stand or fall with base claim 2. With respect to claim 2, the Examiner relies on Harald as teaching the limitation of “said control module is contained within a [conductive] housing.” Ans. 10. Specifically, the Examiner states, “Harald does teach: a conductive housing which contains the control module; said housing is metal (Col[.] 6[,] lines 26-28).” Id. Harald, in lines 26—30 of column 6, states: It is noted that the receiver antenna 210 may be enclosed together with the sensor electronics 200 in casing 120, with the casing 120 being made of metal and shaped so that the metal does not cover the receiver antenna 210 in the frontal direction. (Emphasis omitted.) In an Advisory Action, the Examiner clarified that the sensor electronics, i.e., “the control module of Harald 200 Fig[.] 3” which does not include the receiver antenna, is also relied on as the control module of claim 1. Adv. Act. 2. That clarification moots Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 7) that Harald’s metal casing does not contain receiver antenna 210.2 Appellants assert that Harald’s sensor electronics, which according to the Examiner is element 200 in Harald’s Figure 3, cannot correspond to the control module recited in Appellants’ claim 1. The argument is misplaced. What Harald refers to as “sensor electronics” includes that which in the 2 Assuming that receiver antenna 210 is considered as a part of the structure of Harald that the Examiner regards as Appellants’ claimed control module, we agree with the Examiner’s position that claim 2 does not require complete enclosure of the entire control module. Note that in plain and ordinary use of the English language, a container need not have a lid, and still a container is reasonably said to contain its contents, some of which may have a portion protruding from the container. Under the applicable rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, “contain” does not require complete enclosure in every direction as Appellants appear to argue. 14 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 context of Appellants’ invention is the control module. Specifically, Harald states: “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the sensor electronics including a microcomputer and associated analog and digital components.” Harald, 5:1— 3 (emphasis omitted). In Harald’s Figure 3, which depicts Harald’s sensor electronics, element 300 is the microcontroller and its functions are described in Harald at column 7, lines 17—60. For instance Harald describes: When a detection has been ascertained, microcontroller 300 commonly causes the proper driver to one of the solenoids 260 and 265 or the variable mixing valve 270 to energize. Following a brief period after the cessation of any detection, microcontroller 300 commonly causes the water flow to cease by closing the solenoid valve 260. Harald, 7:52—58 (emphasis omitted). Appellants do not adequately explain why Harald’s microcontroller 300 cannot reasonably be regarded as a control module that corresponds to the control module of Appellants’ claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claims 2-4 are unpatentable as obvious over Davidson, Jonte, and Harald. We sustain this ground of rejection for claims 2-4. H. Rejection of Claims 7 and 9 as Obvious over Davidson, Jonte, and DuPuis For this ground of rejection, Appellants have not asserted any argument in addition to those it made with respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Davidson and Jonte, which have been rejected as discussed above. Thus, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claims 7 and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Davidson, Jonte, and DuPuis. We sustain this ground of rejection for claims 7 and 9. 15 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 I. Rejection of Claim 7 as Obvious over Davidson, Jonte, Cretu- Petra and AAPA For this ground of rejection, Appellants have not asserted any argument in addition to those it made with respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Davidson and Jonte, which have been rejected as discussed above. Thus, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 7 is unpatentable as obvious over Davidson, Jonte, Cretu-Petra, and AAPA. We sustain this ground of rejection for claim 7. J. Rejection of Claim 12 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (post AIA) or 35U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph (pre-AIA) as Indefinite Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the capacitive position sensor module is defined by an absence of a sensor wire.” The Examiner states: Claim 12 recites “an absence of a sensor wire”. It is unclear from a reading of the claim what is intended by the term/phrase. In other words, does it mean that there are no sensor wires, or that there is a sensor wire missing from a group of sensor wires? Ans. 2. Appellants respond by noting that when read in light of the Specification, which describes pre-existing prior art as using a sensor wire placed along a faucet pipe to sense the capacitance between a user and the faucet pipe, the phrase at issue is not unclear. App. Br. 3. The phrase at issue must be read in light of the Specification, in context. That is not the same as reading extraneous limitations from the Specification into the claim. Because the Specification describes the prior art as using a sensor wire to sense the capacitance between a user and a fixture, the phrase “an absence of a sensor wire” in claim 12 cannot reasonably be read as covering multiple sensor wires 16 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 but with an additional sensor wire missing or absent from the group, as suggested by the Examiner. On page 15 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner appears to regard impermissible that base independent claim 1 is sufficiently broad to cover the inclusion of a sensor wire although dependent claim 12 excludes it. But it is only a problem if the base independent claim requires the inclusion of a sensor wire although the dependent claim excludes it.3 Here, independent claim 1 does not require the inclusion of a sensor wire. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not articulated sufficient reasoning to support a determination that claim 1 is indefinite. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 as indefinite. DECISION The rejection of claims 1,10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jonte is affirmed. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jonte is reversed. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jonte is affirmed. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jonte and Davidson is reversed. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jonte, Davidson, and DuPuis is reversed. 3 A dependent claim, by way of its dependency, includes all the limitations of its base claim or claims. 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), 4th paragraph. 17 Appeal 2015-003612 Application 13/708,947 The rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jonte and Rodenbeck is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davidson and Jonte is affirmed. The rejection of claims 2—\ under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davidson, Jonte, and Harald is affirmed. The rejection of claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davidson, Jonte, and DuPuis is affirmed. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davidson, Jonte, Cretu-Petra, and AAPA is affirmed. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (post-AIA) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter which the inventor (post-AIA) or applicant (pre-AIA) regards as the invention is reversed. 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 18 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation