Ex Parte Bevot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2018

13704650 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 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.
13/704,650 12/17/2012 Claudius Bevot 022862-1522-US00 2796
34044 7590 01/23/2018
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
PHAN, TRUONG D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2018 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLAUDIUS BEVOT and HELGE SCHICHLEIN
Appeal 2017-001836
Application 13/704,650
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JULIA HEANEY, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification dated December
17, 2012 (Spec.), Final Office Action dated September 14, 2015 (Final),
Appeal Brief dated February 15, 2016 (Appeal Br.), Examiner’s Answer
dated September 15, 2016 (Ans.), and Reply Brief dated November 15, 2016
(Reply Br.).
Appeal 2017-001836
Application 13/704,650
STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Schnaibel3 and claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Schnaibel. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a circuit assembly for operating a gas
probe. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A circuit assembly for operating a probe (10) for
determining the oxygen concentration in a gas mixture
comprising
a pump cell having two electrodes (11, 15), as an outer
and an inner pump electrode,
a Nemst cell having two electrodes, a Nemst electrode
(15) and a reference electrode (19), and
a pump current controller (210), which controls a pump
current that is applied to the pump cell such that a
predeterminable Nemst voltage (Un), that can be tapped at the
Nemst cell, is controlled to a predeterminable value,
characterized in that the predeterminable value of the Nemst
voltage is varied.
Appeal Br. 8 (formatting added).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2.
3 Schnaibel et al., US 2006/0137427 Al, published June 29, 2006.
2
Appeal 2017-001836
Application 13/704,650
OPINION
As seen by Schnaibel’s Figure 1, Schnaibel’s gas probe has a pump
cell, Nemst cell, and electrode structure as required by claim 1. It is the
pump controller that is at issue.
Claim 1 requires a pump controller that controls the pump current
applied to the pump cell such that a predeterminable Nemst voltage (Un) is
controlled to a predeterminable value. In controller terminology, the
predeterminable value is the setpoint or target value for Nemst voltage
within the controller. Claim 1 requires that the predeterminable value be
varied. In other words, the setpoint or target value within the controller is
varied.
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection fails because it confuses the
predeterminable value of claim 1 with an output voltage taught by
Schnaibel. There is no dispute that Schnaibel controls a predeterminable
Nemst voltage to a predetermined value that is a constant value such as
approximately 450 mV. Compare Appeal Br. 5—6, with Final 4. This
predetermined value of, for instance, 450 mV is always constant. Schnaibel
135. The Examiner finds that Schnaibel’s disclosure of an abmpt voltage
change in the area of a stoichiometric gas mixture present at the second
electrode of the Nemst cell means that the output voltage at the second
electrode varies (Final 4), but this output voltage is not the same as the
predeterminable value of claim 1. As we stated above, the predeterminable
value is a setpoint or target value within the controller, not the output
voltage of the Nemst cell. The Examiner has not established that Schnaibel
includes a pump current controller having the stmcture required by claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-001836
Application 13/704,650
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection does not cure the above
deficiency. Thus, the Examiner reversibly erred as to all the rejected claims.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4