Ex Parte Henning et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12636936 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/636,936 12/14/2009
35301 7590 03/28/2016
MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP
CITY PLACE II
185 ASYLUM STREET
HARTFORD, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dennis Henning
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
6495-0383 2350
EXAMINER
MCCALL, ERIC SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
patentdocket@ip-lawyers .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENNIS HENNING, JOHN KRISTENSEN, and
SOEREN MOELLER HANSEN
Appeal2014-003404
Application 12/636,936
Technology Center 2800
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §
134(a). 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants appeal the Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-8 mailed on March
13, 2013, which was issued in response to Appellants' previous Appeal Brief
filed on January 25, 2013. Claims 9-14 are objected to, but indicated as
containing allowable subject matter. Office Action 6.
Appeal2014-003404
Application 12/636,936
Introduction
The invention is directed to "rotation angle sensor, in particular a
steering angle sensor for a steering unit." Specification i-f l. 2
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A rotation angle sensor comprising:
a housing having an exterior and a sensor chamber,
a pick-up sensor arranged in the sensor chamber, wherein
the pick-up sensor is configured to perform rotary movements
around a rotation axis, and
a stationary receiver for interacting with the pick-up
sensor,
wherein the sensor chamber is connected to the exterior
via at least one free space.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1; 2; 5; and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Nagaoka (US 2005/0109089 Al; May 26, 2005). Answer 2.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nagaoka. Answer 3.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Non-Final Rejection (mailed March 13, 2013), the Appeal
Brief (filed October 8, 2013), the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 17,
2013), and Reply Brief (filed January 27, 2014) for the respective details.
2 We refer to the original Specification, filed December 14, 2009.
2
Appeal2014-003404
Application 12/636,936
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants argue claim 1 is not anticipated by Nagaoka, "because
N agaoka fails to show or disclose any form of free space connecting a sensor
chamber of a housing to an exterior of the housing." Appeal Brief 9
(emphasis removed). Appellants contend that in Fig. 2 ofNagaoka, the area
of fitted recessed portion 6 below sensor 5 "is not an opening of any kind,"
and Nagaoka "fails to teach any form of 'free space'" connecting the
exterior of column 4 and fitted recessed portion 6. Appeal Brief 10. Figure
2, reproduced below, is a perspective view illustrating a state in which
sensor 5 has been mounted in column 4.
3
Appeal2014-003404
Application 12/636,936
FIG. 2
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner has broadly and
reasonably interpreted the claimed "free space" as encompassing the space
inside recessed portion 6 below sensor 5 as shown in Fig. 2, which is
unoccupied. See Non-Final Action 3. Additionally, the Examiner finds
N agaoka teaches this unoccupied area exists so that sensor 5 can be removed
without dissembling the entire steering assembly. Answer 7, citing Nagaoka
i-f50. Appellants additionally contend that Nagaoka contemplates protecting
the sensor by sealing the external openings of column 4 (Appeal Brief 12),
but we find no support for this claim; for example, Fig. 2 fails to illustrate
any sealing of column 4. Further, Appellants do not persuasively show the
claim language, particularly the recited "sensor chamber is connected to the
exterior via at least one free space" (emphasis added) precludes the column
ofNagaoka.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Appellants argue the Examiner has
failed to identify any form of a channel extending transversely from a
rotation axis in Nagaoka. We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner
broadly and reasonably interprets the opening under sensor 5 as a channel
and finds that claim 2 "sets forth no unique definition for the meaning of
4
Appeal2014-003404
Application 12/636,936
channel so the word has been given its well-known meaning of a three sided
extended opening." Answer 10.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error and
therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claim 2, as well as claims 5 and 8 not separately
argued. See Appeal Brief 15.
Regarding the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, and
7, Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to provide any rationale as to
why the claims would have been obvious in view ofNagaoka. Appeal Brief
17. In particular, Appellants disagree with the Examiner's finding of
motivation because of the existence of free space below the sensor, and
again maintain that housing 4 ofNagaoka is sealed. Appeal Brief 17, citing
Office Action 5---6. We are not persuaded. The Examiner's findings, as
shown above, include that Nagaoka teaches that the existence of the free
space permits easier removal of the sensor. We conclude the Examiner's
articulated reasoning provides a rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
We thus do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim
3, 4, 6, and 7. Appellants' arguments refer to the specific claim language
(see Appeal Brief 17-18), but do not persuade us that Nagaoka does not at
least suggest the claims, as found by the Examiner (see Answer 3-5). An
obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
challenged claim's specific subject matter, for a court can consider the
inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ." KSR at 401.
5
Appeal2014-003404
Application 12/636,936
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error and
therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 3, 4, 6, and 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6