Ex Parte Muller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2014

11660495 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KLAUS-GEORG MULLER
____________
Appeal 2011-013138
Application 11/660,495
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013138
Application 11/660,495

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of sole independent claim 12 as
unpatentable over Heim (US 6,787,935 B2, issued Sept. 7, 2004) in view of
Guntzburger et al. (US 6,240,177 B1, issued May 29, 2001) and of
remaining dependent claims 2-11 and 13-17 as unpatentable over these
references alone or in combination with an additional prior art reference.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM.

Appellant claims a device for measuring electrical current, voltage,
and temperature in a low voltage system comprising two conductor sections
(13, 14), an electrical resistor element (23), a measuring arrangement (27,
28) including at least one measuring device and a microprocessor, "wherein
the output signal of the at least one measuring device is fed to the
microprocessor via a respective potential isolator [e.g., an optocoupler (see
Spec. 8:14-15)]" (claim 12, Figs. 1-2).

A copy of claim 12, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, appears below.
12. A device for measuring electrical current, voltage, and
temperature in a low voltage system, comprising:
a contact piece; and
a conductor made of rigid material, wherein the conductor includes:
two conductor sections, wherein each conductor is formed on an
opposite end of the conductor;
an electrical resistor element disposed between the two conductor
Appeal 2011-013138
Application 11/660,495

3
sections, wherein the electrical resistor is formed of a material having
greater resistance than a material of which the two conductor sections are
formed;
an area in a region of the resistor element that is flatter than the two
conductor sections and forms a depression between the two conductor
sections;
a measuring arrangement formed over the depression as a bridge
between the two conductor sections, the measuring arrangement including at
least one measuring device and a microprocessor, wherein the output signal
of the at least one measuring device is fed to the microprocessor via a
respective potential isolator, and
wherein the contact piece is connected to a first of the two conductor
sections and connects the conductor to another conductor such that the heat
generated at a contact point is measured.

Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to
the dependent claims including the separately rejected dependent claims
(App. Br. 4-6). Therefore, the dependent claims on appeal will stand or fall
with sole independent claim 12.

We sustain the above rejections for the reasons well expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer and add the following comments for emphasis and
completeness.

Appellant does not contest the Examiner's findings that Heim
discloses all aspects of the claim 12 device except for the claimed potential
isolator (e.g., optocoupler) and that Guntzburger discloses a similar device
comprising a potential isolator (i.e., an optocoupler) (see App. Br. 4-5, cf.
Ans. 5). Rather, Appellant argues one with ordinary skill in this art would
not have provided Heim's battery sensor device with Guntzburger's
optocoupler as proposed by the Examiner (see Ans. 5-6). Appellant bases
Appeal 2011-013138
Application 11/660,495

4
this argument on the contentions that (i) an artisan would have understood
an optocoupler is used to prevent high or rapidly changing voltages from
damaging circuit components (App. Br. 5) and (ii) the danger of such
damage in the circuit of Heim's battery sensor device "is largely minimal
since it is understood that the circuit employs a common ground" (id.).

As correctly indicated by the Examiner, this argument is not
persuasive because Appellant has provided no evidence in support of
contentions (i) and (ii) above (Ans. 10-12). Moreover, these contentions are
not compatible with Appellant's Specification disclosure of using the
claimed device in low-voltage electrical systems generally (Abst.) which
encompass the low-voltage battery system of Heim. Further, the contentions
conflict with the Specification disclosure of a comparative device for
measuring current in a battery management system (Spec. 2:28-31).

The Examiner additionally responds to Appellant's argument by
finding that several different events could create high or rapidly changing
voltages and thereby damage a battery in the Heim system (Ans. 11-12) and
concluding that an artisan would have provided Heim's device with
Guntzburger's isolation optocouplers in order to protect the device from such
damage (id.). In reply, "Appellant submits that even if any of these
hypothetical events were to occur, given the configuration of the circuit
described in Heim there would be little chance that an optocoupler as
described in Guntzburger would have the capability to protect the electronic
circuit from damage" (Reply Br. 3). This reply fails to reveal any error in
the Examiner's above finding and conclusion because Appellant provides no
Appeal 2011-013138
Application 11/660,495

5
evidence in support of the assertion "there would be little chance that an
optocoupler as described in Guntzburger would have the capability to
protect the electronic circuit from damage" (id.).

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc