Ex Parte Kirst et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

12457663 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)

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.
12/457,663 06/18/2009 Michael Kirst KIRS3003/JS/FJD 1912
23364 7590
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
BALSECA, FRANKLIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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):
MAIL @B ACONTHOMAS .COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL KIRST, PETER LINDMULLER, MARTIN HERTEL,
and PAUL CEGLIA
Appeal 2016-004835
Application 12/457,663
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a second
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6—61, which are all of the claims currently
pending in the application. See Non-Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-004835
Application 12/457,663
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A measuring system for measuring at least one physical
and/or at least one chemical, measured variable of a medium
conveyed in a line and/or held in a container, said measuring
system comprising:
a sensor module including:
a sensor housing,
at least one measuring transducer arranged at least
partially in said sensor housing for registering the at least
one measured variable and for producing at least one
primary signal influenced by the measured variable, said
measuring transducer being adapted to be held on a
container or a pipeline system and/or said measuring
transducer being adapted to contact the medium to be
measured or to protrude at least partially into the medium
to be measured,
sensor electronics arranged within said sensor
housing and connected with said at least one measuring
transducer, for converting the primary signal delivered
from said at least one measuring transducer into a sensor
signal,
an energy supply unit, said energy supply unit
includes at least one energy storer arranged within said
sensor housing, for storing energy to be converted in said
at least one measuring system; and
a transmitter module including:
a transmitter housing, and
a transmitter electronics accommodated in said
transmitter housing, for converting said sensor signal
delivered from said sensor module into measured values
representing the at least one measured variable;
wherein said sensor housing is releasably connected
to said transmitter housing, said releasable connection
2
Appeal 2016-004835
Application 12/457,663
including a releasable electrical coupling between said
transmitter electronics and said sensor electronics; and
wherein said transmitter electronics draws, during
operation, at least at times electrical power from said
energy supply unit of said sensor module.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 6—13, 15, 30, 39-47, 50-53, and 61 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Applicant’s
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Lanctot (US 5,764,928; issued June 9, 1998),
Mastrototaro (US 2006/0202859 Al; published Sept. 14, 2006), and Quinn
(US 8,217,893 B2; issued July 10, 2012). Non-Final Act. 1—11.
Claims 14, 16—29, 31—38, 48, 49, and 54—60 stand rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of AAPA,
Lanctot, Mastrototaro, Quinn, and various additional references. See Non-
Final Act. 11—27.
ISSUES
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of AAPA,
Lanctot, Mastrototaro, and Quinn teaches or suggests wherein said sensor
housing is releasably connected to said transmitter housing, said releasable
connection including a releasable electrical coupling between said
transmitter electronics and said sensor electronics (“releasable connection”
limitation), as recited in independent claim 1?
B) Did the Examiner improperly combine the references?
3
Appeal 2016-004835
Application 12/457,663
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of AAPA, Lanctot, Mastrototaro,
and Quinn does not teach or suggest the “releasable connection” limitation
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 2—\. In particular,
Appellants argue that AAPA and Lanctot do not disclose or suggest any
releasable connection or coupling as claimed. App. Br. 12. Appellants
further argue there is no teaching or suggestion in Mastrototaro that a sensor
housing is connected (removably or otherwise) to a transmitter housing
because Mastrototaro does not disclose a sensor housing. Id. at 12—13.
Appellants assert the mounting base 20 disclosed by Mastrototaro is not a
housing by any reasonable interpretation in view of the specification of the
present application because nothing is “housed” within the mounting base.
Reply Br. 3. Additionally, Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art
would not include an energy supply unit as part of Mastrototaro’s sensor set
because persons of ordinary skill would not place a battery or other power
source in close proximity to the subcutaneous needle. App. Br. 13—14; see
also Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants’ arguments that Mastrototaro’s mounting
base 30 does not teach the claimed sensor housing because it does not house
sensor 12. See Mastrototaro Figs. 1, 2. But we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that the combination of cited references does not
teach or suggest the “releasable connection” limitation. Appellants’
arguments regarding AAPA and Lanctot are not persuasive as one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the
Examiner relies upon the combination of references to teach the disputed
limitation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
4
Appeal 2016-004835
Application 12/457,663
The Examiner finds Lanctot teaches a sensor module releasably
connected to a transmitter module, where the releasable connection includes
a releasable electrical coupling between the transmitter electronics and the
sensor electronics. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner does not rely solely on
Mastrototaro to teach a sensor housing releasably connected to a transmitter
housing, but additionally finds that Quinn also teaches a sensor housing
(with an energy supplying unit) releasably connected to a transmitter. See
Non Final Act. 5. Quinn describes main housing 12 (equated by Examiner
to be the sensor housing) includes sensors 46 and is detachable connected to
removable pod 14 (equated by the Examiner to be the transmitter housing).
See Quinn Figs. 1, 5, 3:1—10; 4:53—56). Because Appellants do not address
these findings, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of AAPA, Lanctot, Mastrototaro, and Quinn teaches or
suggests the “releasable connection” limitation. Moreover, although not
relied upon for our decision, we further observe that AAPA also discloses
the sensor housing and transmitter housing “can be connected releasably
with one another by plugging them together.” Spec. 7:11—16; see also Spec.
31:19-28 (describing the pluggable connector between sensor housing and
transmitter housing can be implemented as described in prior patent US
6,705,898).
We are also not persuaded that the Examiner improperly combined the
references. The relevant inquiry in an obviousness analysis is whether the
Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSRInti Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). The Examiner finds one of
5
Appeal 2016-004835
Application 12/457,663
ordinary skill would have combined Quinn’s teachings of a power supply in
the sensor housing that supplies power to an external transmitter with the
other cited references “because it will permit to connect an external
transmitter to the sensor system without adding substantially to the bulk of
the system since the external transmitter does not require to have a power
supply.”
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s stated reasons for the
combination, which we determine is sufficient rationale to support the
combination. Appellants’ assertions do not convince us the references
cannot be combined. To justify combining references, it is not necessary
that the features of one reference be bodily incorporated into the other. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Examiner explains the cited prior art was used
in the general sense of a sensor transmitting data, and not directed to a
specific field such as a subcutaneous sensor. Ans. 4. Although we are
unpersuaded the combination of Mastrototaro with the other cited references
is improper, we additionally observe that, as discussed supra, the Examiner
finds that Quinn teaches the same limitation as Mastrototaro, and thus the
Examiner effectively finds the combination of AAPA, Lanctot, and Quinn
(without Mastrototaro) teaches the limitations of claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, and 6—61, for which
Appellants do not present separate arguments for patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 6—61.
6
Appeal 2016-004835
Application 12/457,663
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7