Ex parte Clark

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2001

08810477 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board

Paper No. 16

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte LLOYD DOUGLAS CLARK
_____________

Appeal No. 1999-1692
Application No. 08/810,477
_____________

ON BRIEF
_____________

Before URYNOWICZ, BARRETT, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.

URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

Decision on Appeal
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 49-72, all
the claims pending in the application.
The invention pertains to method and apparatus for measuring
the electrical properties of a fluid and depth of immersion of a
probe in the fluid. Claim 49 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
49. A measurement system, comprising:
a. potential source means with a ground return,

b. a plurality of electrically conductive sections,
said sections being electrically separate,

c. connecting means for connecting a first of said
Appeal No. 1999-1692
Application No. 08/810,477

2
sections to said potential source means, said first
section having predetermined physical dimensions,

d. potential switching means for selectively
connecting a second of said sections to either said
potential source means or to said ground return,

e. electrical current measuring means, and

f. connecting means for connecting one of said
sections to said electrical current measuring means.

The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Brinegar 4,021,730 May 03,
1977
Hoyt, Jr. et al. (Hoyt) 4,293,756 Oct. 06,
1981

The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hoyt and Brinegar.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 8) and the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 13) and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12) and reply brief
(Paper No. 14).
Appellant’s Invention

An adequate description of the invention is provided at page
2 of the brief.
The Prior Art
An adequate description of the references is provided at
Appeal No. 1999-1692
Application No. 08/810,477

3
pages 3 and 4 of the brief.

The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by
both the examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that the
rejection should not be sustained.
Although all of the independent claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hoyt and Brinegar, the
examiner’s position is that “Hoyt actually contains, satisfies and
anticipates all of the limitations of the applicant’s independent
claims.” (Paper No. 8, page 5).
With the exception of “electrical current measuring means”,
the examiner has made no showing as to what structure in Hoyt
meets the limitations of the independent claims. Such being the
case, the examiner has not satisfied his burden of establishing a
prima facie case of unpatentability and the rejection of the
independent claims cannot be sustained.
Whereas the Brinegar reference was in effect combined with
Hoyt to meet limitations added by the dependent claims, the
rejection of

Appeal No. 1999-1692
Application No. 08/810,477

4

these claims cannot be sustained in view of our decision with
respect to the independent claims.

REVERSED

STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEAL AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 1999-1692
Application No. 08/810,477

5

SU/RWK

LLOYD DOUGLAS CLARK
15 CONRAD STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131