Ex Parte Bruck

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 2008

09998724 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROLF BRUCK
____________

Appeal 2008-1291
Application 09/998,724
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 24, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 5-7, 14, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.

Appellant claims a honeycomb body 4 comprising ceramic walls 8 all
being entirely formed of printed layers and at least one of a measuring
Appeal 2008-1291
Application 09/998,724

sensor 15 or an electrically conductive mass 17 integrated into one of the
ceramic walls (Figs. 1-2; claim 5).
Representative claim 5 reads as follows:
5. A honeycomb body, comprising:

ceramic walls all being entirely formed of printed layers forming
channels through which a fluid can flow, said channels lying next to one
another; and

at least one of at least one measuring sensor and an electrically
conductive mass integrated into one of said ceramic walls.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Maus 5,474,746 Dec. 12, 1995
Bauer 5,714,103 Feb. 3, 1998

All appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bauer in view of Maus.
The dependent claims have not been argued separately from sole
independent claim 5 (Br. 15). Accordingly, in assessing the merits of the
rejection before us, we will focus on independent claim 5 with which the
dependent claims will stand or fall.
We will sustain this rejection for the reasons expressed in the Answer
and below.
The Examiner has made the undisputed finding that Bauer discloses a
honeycomb body which corresponds to that of claim 5 except for the claim
requirement "at least one of at least one measuring sensor and an electrically
conductive mass integrated into one of said ceramic walls" (claim 5; Ans. 3).
2
Appeal 2008-1291
Application 09/998,724

Nevertheless, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for
one with ordinary skill in this art to integrate into one of Bauer's ceramic
walls a temperature measuring conductor or sensor in order to measure the
wall temperature of the honeycomb body as taught by Maus (Maus, col. 3,
ll. 41-60, para. bridging cols. 4-5, col. 5, ll. 26-38, Figs. 1, 2, 4; Ans. 4).
In support of a nonobviousness position, Appellant argues that an
artisan would never have combined Bauer and Maus because the respective
honeycomb structures thereof are produced by "completely different
methods" (Br. 9). In this regard, Appellant emphasizes that "the Maus
reference clearly points in the direction of first manufacturing the walls of
the honeycomb body (the foils) with voids or structures, before the sensor is
positioned between two corresponding shaped foils" (Br. 9-10). Therefore,
in Appellant's view, if the artisan "were to make a combination of Bauer and
Maus, first the walls of the ceramic honeycomb structure would need to be
manufactured according to a printing method [as taught by Bauer], and
afterwards the sensor [as taught by Maus] would have to be positioned
between two such printed layers before the honeycomb structure was finally
formed" (Br. 10).
Like the Examiner, we conclude that an artisan would have been
motivated to integrate into a ceramic wall of Bauer's honeycomb body a
measuring conductor or sensor in order to measure the wall temperature of
the honeycomb body as taught by Maus. Moreover, as indicated above by
Appellant, it would have been obvious for an artisan to so combine the
applied reference teachings by first using Bauer's printing method to
manufacture a honeycomb body comprising ceramic walls with a void into
3
Appeal 2008-1291
Application 09/998,724

which is integrated a prefabricated measuring conductor or sensor in
accordance with the teachings of Maus (Fig. 2, para. bridging cols. 4-5).
The result of this combination would fully satisfy the requirements of
appealed claim 5.
Concerning this last mentioned point, we find nothing and Appellant
points to nothing in the claim 5 language which excludes the above
discussed combination of a honeycomb body of the type taught by Bauer
and a prefabricated conductor or sensor of the type taught by Maus. To the
contrary, when properly interpreted, claim 5 appears to clearly encompass
such a combination. In this regard, we remind Appellant that the claim must
be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). We also remind Appellant that the subject Specification
expressly teaches using a prefabricated measuring sensor in producing
Appellant's honeycomb body invention (Spec. para. bridging 7-8).
Therefore, an artisan would interpret claim 5 consistent with the
Specification to encompass the combination of a prefabricated measuring
sensor as taught by Maus integrated into a ceramic wall of a honeycomb
body of the type defined by claim 5 and disclosed by Bauer.
For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, we sustain the § 103
rejection of all appealed claims as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of
Maus.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2008-1291
Application 09/998,724

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam

LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480

5