Ex parte Stahl

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 19, 2001

08820238 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 19, 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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ALBRECHT STAHL
____________
Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 3.
The disclosed invention relates to a weighing cell for an
electronic balance that has a capacitor formed by two metallic
plates. One side of one of the two metallic plates faces the
other metallic plate, and the other side of the one metallic
plate has electrical circuit components mounted thereon.
Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
2
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
1. A weighing cell for an electronic balance having
electrical circuit components, defining two sidewalls which are
displaced parallel to each other as a function of a weight
placed on the balance, and including two metallic plates which
move relative to each other and together form a capacitor with
capacitances that change as a function of said relative movement
caused by the weight placed on the balance, wherein one of said
plates defines a printed circuit board, having two sides with
one side facing said other of said plates, and being provided
with a metallic layer, and the other side supporting electrical
circuit components of the balance.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Bell 4,295,376 Oct.
20, 1981
Sato 4,846,294 July
11, 1989
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Bell.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 18),
the answer (paper number 24), and the briefs (paper numbers 23
and 25) for the respective positions of the examiner and the
appellant.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
3
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 3.
According to the examiner (final rejection, page 2):
Sato discloses the claimed invention except for the
driving circuitry is not supported on one of the
plates which form the capacitive sensor. Bell teaches
that it is known to form the driving circuitry on one
of the plates which form the capacitive sensor (Col.
8, ln.s 12-21). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to form the driving
circuitry of the weight sensor of Sato on one of the
capacitive plates of the sensor, as taught by Bell, to
save space.
In response to the examiner’s rejection, appellant argues
(brief, page 4) that the electrical components 12 in Bell’s
device are not mounted in the claimed manner because they are
located on an extension 17 that is adjacent to the
diaphragm/capacitor plate 18.
In rebuttal, the examiner indicates (answer, page 5) that
“even if the claim language could be interpreted to limit the
applicant’s claimed invention to an embodiment where the circuit
components of the force sensor of the present invention are
located on the backside of a part of the moving plate which
actually moves rather than on an integral extension of the
Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
4
moving plate where the extension itself does not move, it has
been held that merely rearranging the parts of an invention,
where the rearrangement itself does not significantly affect the
operation of the device, involves only routine skill in the
art.”
Appellant argues (brief, page 5; reply brief, pages 2 and
3) that the disclosed and claimed mounting arrangement of the
electrical circuitry on the backside of the capacitor plate was
developed to save space (specification, page 2, lines 15 through
18). Thus, appellant concludes (reply brief, pages 2 and 3)
that “if the plate of Bell is utilized, it would necessarily
increase the size of Sato’s device significantly.” We agree.
More importantly, we disagree with the examiner’s unsupported
contention that it would only be a matter of routine skill in
the art to locate the electrical circuit components in the
manner claimed by appellant.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1 through 3 is reversed
because the examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
5
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
6
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
7
FELIX J D'AMBROSIO
P O BOX 2266 EADS STATION
ARLINGTON, VA 22202
Lettie
JUDGE HAIRSTON
APPEAL NO. 1999-1607
APPLICATION NO. 08/820,238
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ BLANKENSHIP
APJ KRASS
DECISION: REVERSED
PREPARED: Jul 18, 2002
OB/HD
PALM
ACTS 2

DISK (FOIA)
REPORT
BOOK