Ex Parte Cheung et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2009

09975507 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________ 6
7
Ex parte KEN C. K. CHEUNG and CHRISTOPHER J. SULLIVAN 8
____________ 9
10
Appeal 2006-2304 11
Application 09/975,507 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________ 14
15
Decided: January 28, 2009 16
____________ 17
18
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD and 19
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges1 20
21
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 22
23
24
25
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING26

1 Administrative Patent Judge Anton W. Fetting has been added to the panel
due to the retirement of former Administrative Patent Judge Stuart S. Levy.

Appeal 2006-2304
Application 09/975,507

2
INTRODUCTION 1
Appellants filed a Request for Reconsideration contending that the 2
Board did not fully consider the present invention in its Decision on Appeal 3
(mailed July 25, 2007) and asking that we reconsider and reverse the 4
Examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 32 to 35, and 37 to 46 (p. 1).2 5
In the Decision on Appeal a panel of the Board reversed the 6
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejection of claims 1, 2 to 7, 15. 17 to 7
24 to 30 and sustained the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 36 and 47 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32 to 35, 9
37, 40, 41 to 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 10
OPINION 11
Appellants argue that we did not consider that in the present invention 12
as recited in claim 31, that in the skin element, the pressure transducer and 13
flow modifier are the same one element. 14
We did consider Appellants’ argument that Lurz did not disclose that 15
the pressure transducer and the flow modifier are the same one element. On 16
page 4 of the original opinion, we found that the skin element is formed by 17
elements 1, 2, 3 and 4 and that the elements together form a pressure 18
transducer (1,3,4) and a flow modifier (2). Again on page 5 of the original 19
opinion we stated that “Lurz’s elements 1-4 together form a skin element 20
with elements 1, 3 and 4 being the transducers and element 2 being the flow 21
modifier.” Hence we are not convinced by Appellant’s argument that Lurz 22

2 The Appellants do not request reconsideration of our action in regard to
the rejection of claim 36. Claims 38 and 39 are not a subject of the appeal
because claim 38 has been withdrawn from consideration (Brief 1).
Appeal 2006-2304
Application 09/975,507

3
does not disclose a skin element forming a pressure transducer and a flow 1
modifier or that we did not consider this argument of Appellant. 2
We are likewise not convinced of error in our finding that Lurz 3
discloses a skin element forming a pressure transducer and a flow modifier 4
by Appellants’ argument that we did not consider that Lurz’s arrowhead 5
lines connect the transducers 1, 3 and 4 as inputs to the control circuit 7 and 6
the other arrowheads connect the analyzer control circuits 7 to the outputs of 7
the vibration transmitters 2, because as we stated above the skin element is 8
formed by elements 1 to 4. 9
Although Lurz discloses that elements 1, 3 and 4 are sensors and 10
element 2 is a vibration transmitter, the language of claim 31 is broad 11
enough to cover a skin element that is formed by the elements 1 to 4, and as 12
such, we are not convinced of error in our original opinion by the disclosure 13
of Lurz at col. 3, line 48 to col. 4, line 19. 14
CONCLUSION 15
On the record before us, Appellants have not shown error in our 16
original opinion, therefore, we decline to make any changes therein. 17
18
DENIED 19
vsh 20
21
JAMES C. WRAY 22
SUITE 300 23
1493 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD 24
MCLEAN VA 22101 25