Ex Parte Kurtz et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 23, 200911007681 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte ANTHONY D. KURTZ and WOLF S. LANDMANN _____________ Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 Technology Center 2800 ______________ Decided: September 23, 2009 _______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1 through 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed towards a gas pressure transducer and a processor to perform temperature compensation of the pressure measurement and provide a signal indicative of the gas density. See paragraph 0004 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A gas density transducer comprising: a piezoresistive bridge sensor operative to provide an output indicative of an applied pressure, a computing processor having multiple inputs and at least one output, with the output of the bridge sensor coupled to an input of the processor; a temperature sensor coupled to an input of said processor for providing at an output a signal indicative of a temperature of said bridge sensor, said output of said temperature sensor coupled to an input of said processor; and, at least one memory accessible by the processor and having stored therein: compensation coefficients for compensating the output of said bridge sensor for temperature variation; gas specific coefficients of the Van der Waal's equation; and, code for providing at an output of said processor a signal indicative of a gas density when said bridge is subjected to a gas containing environment. 2 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 REFERENCES Delatorre US 4,924,701 May 15, 1990 Kurtz US 5,428,985 Jul. 4, 1995 Anderson US 5,502,660 Mar. 26, 1996 Seefeldt US 5,708,190 Jan. 13, 1998 Kurtz US 6,401,541 B1 Jun. 11, 2002 White US 2003/0233206A1 Dec. 18, 2003 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, and 9 through 11 are rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz (‘541) in view of Delatorre and Seefeldt. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 7 of the Answer.1 Claim 2 is rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz (‘541) in view of Delatorre, Seefeldt, and Anderson. The Examiner’s rejection is on page 7 of the Answer. Claim 6 is rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz (‘541) in view of Delatorre, Seefeldt, and Kurtz (‘985). The Examiner’s rejection is on page 8 of the Answer. Claim 8 is rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz (‘541) in view of Delatorre, Seefeldt, and White. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 8 and 9 of the Answer. 1 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Answer, mailed November 19, 2007, for the respective details thereof. 3 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 ISSUES Rejection based upon Kurtz (‘541) in view of Delatorre, Seefeldt. Appellants argue, on pages 11 through 16 of the Brief,2 that the rejection of claim 1 is in error. Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly combined Kurtz (‘541), Delatorre, and Seefeldt to reject claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a satisfactory explanation for combining the references and that the references each deal with different types of pressure sensors. Brief 12-13. Further, Appellants argue that even if the references were properly combined, the combined teachings do not teach a memory, accessible by a processor, having code for providing at an output of the processor a signal indicative of a gas density. Appellants argue that Seefeldt, which the Examiner finds teaches a device that provides an output of gas density, merely teaches a device that provides an indication of whether the gas density inside a container is above or below a predetermined threshold. Brief 14-15. Appellants state that claims 2-11 depend upon claim 1 and are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. Accordingly, Appellants’ contentions with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, and 9 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz (‘541) in view of Delatorre and Seefeldt present us with two issues: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in combining the features of Kurtz (‘541), Delatorre, and Seefeldt to reject claim 1? 2 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief received July 30, 2007, for the respective details thereof. 4 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Seefeldt teaches providing a signal indicative of a gas density? Rejection of claims 2, 6, and 8 The Examiner has set forth a separate rejection for each of claims 2, 6, and 8. Appellants’ arguments merely assert that these dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. Therefore, Appellants’ contentions with respect to claims 2, 6, and 8 present us with the same issues as claim 1. PRINCIPLES OF LAW In analyzing the scope of claims, Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” (emphasis in original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and quotations omitted). On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. “One 5 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-20. The Examiner need not give patentable weight to non functional descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and our final decision in Ex parte Curry, 2005-0509 (BPAI 2005), (Affirmed, Rule 36, Fed. Cir., slip op. 06-1003, June 2006). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellants’ Speciation states “[i]n general, detecting gas leaks using the Van der Waal equation is well known.” Para. 0011. 2. Kurtz ‘541 teaches a pressure sensing system where many different pressure measurements in different environments can be performed. The system makes use of several different pressure sensors which are monitored in a sequence. Abstract. 3. The system makes use of a bridge network of piezoelectric sensors where there is a bridge for every environment in which the pressure is to be measured. Each network is connected to two switches. Kurtz ‘541, col. 3, ll. 4-10. 4. One leg of each bridge network is coupled to a power lead via a resistor 150. The resistor 150 is used to measure temperature. Kurtz ‘541, col. 4, ll. 27-31. 6 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 5. Each of the switches is connected to an analog to digital (A/D) converter and a microprocessor. The microprocessor controls the switch to determine which bridge is being monitored by the A/D converter. The microprocessor receives the output of the A/D converter. Kurtz ‘541, col. 3, ll. 19-34. 6. The microprocessor performs calculations for the transducers, which take into account the measurements of the bridge and the temperature of the bridge to determine the monitored pressure. Kurtz ‘541, col. 3, ll. 35-50; col. 4, ll. 36-50. 7. Delatorre teaches a pressure measurement device which includes a capacitive device that has several capacitive plates that are surrounded by dielectric gas. The pressure of the gas, and its density, are controlled by the pressure to be measured. The sensor works by measuring the capacitance of the gas to determine the density, and then uses the density measurement to determine the pressure that is being measured. Abstract. 8. Delatorre teaches that to determine the pressure from the density (measured by capacitance) the Van der Waal relationship can be utilized. Col. 15, ll. 50-56. 9. Seefeldt teaches a gas concentration sensor for use in a container having a constant volume, which encloses a gas having a known pressure at a given temperature. The senor is temperature compensated. Abstract. 10. Seefeldt teaches that the pressure is measured by a bridge of piezoelectric elements. Col. 2, ll. 41-45. 7 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 11. Appellants admit that the output of Seefeldt’s device provides “an indication of whether the gas density inside a container is above or below a predetermined threshold.” Brief 15. ANALYSIS First issue. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in combining the features of Kurtz (‘541), Delatorre, and Seefeldt. Appellants’ arguments on pages 12 and 13 of the Brief address the combination of Kurtz (‘541) and Delatorre separately from the combination of Kurtz (‘541), Delatorre, and Seefeldt. The Examiner on page 4 of the Answer, identifies that Delatorre is relied upon for teaching the limitation relating to the gas specific coefficients of the Van der Waal equation. Appellants argue that this combination is improper as it is not apparent why a person would incorporate the coefficients of the Van der Waal equation into the device of Delatorre. Brief 12. We do not reach this issue as the limitation of claim 1, which recites the coefficients of the Van der Waal equation is directed to non functional descriptive information. As discussed by our reviewing court, the Examiner does not need to give patentable weight to nonfunctional descriptive material, as it “will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” In Re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339 (internal citation omitted). Appellants’ claim 1 recites a “memory accessible by the processor and having stored therein … gas specific coefficients of the Van der Waal’s equation.” Claim 1 does not recite any function in which this data is used, nor have Appellants shown that the data in any way functionally changes the 8 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 memory (the substrate on which the data is recorded). Thus, we do not find that the mere recitation that the memory stores a particular type of data differentiates the claimed invention over the prior art. Accordingly, the issue of whether or not the Examiner properly combined Kurtz and Delatorre is moot as the limitation for which Delatorre is relied upon for teaching will not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art. We next consider whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in combining Kurtz (‘541), Delatorre, and Seefeldt. Appellants argue that Seefeldt makes use of the ideal gas equation and that a skilled artisan would not be motivated to cherry pick only the concentration measuring aspect of Seefeldt with the multiple pressure sensor teaching of Kurtz (‘541) and the Van der Waal teaching of Delatorre. Brief 13. We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, the limitations directed to the memory storing the coefficients of the Van der Waal equation will not differentiate the claim from the prior art. Further, Appellants admit that the use of the Van der Waal equation is well known. Fact 1. Claim 1 further recites that the memory has “code for providing at an output of said processor a signal indicative of a gas density when said bridge is subjected to a gas containing environment.” The Examiner has found that one skilled in the art would combine the teachings of Seefeldt with Kurtz (‘541) to allow the processor to determine the gas density. Answer 5, 11. We concur with the Examiner’s finding. Both Kurtz (‘541) and Seefeldt teach measuring pressure using a bridge of piezoelectric devices and compensating for temperature. Facts 3, 6, 9, and 10. Seefeldt teaches that the output of the device is a concentration or density of the gas. Fact 11. We consider the combination of the two teachings to be nothing more than the combination 9 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 of familiar elements to perform their intended function. Here Kurtz (‘541) teaches that one processor can monitor plural pressures and Seefeldt teaches that monitoring pressure can be used to determine a gas concentration. We consider that one skilled in the art would recognize that in combining Seefeldt with Kurtz (‘541), the Seefeldt analog circuit that converts pressure and temperature into an indication of pressure would be digitized and a processor would operate with stored code to perform the same function For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in combining the features of Kurtz, Delatorre, and Seefeldt to reject claim 1. Second issue. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Seefeldt teaches providing a signal indicative of a gas density as recited in claim 1. Appellants argue on page 15 of the Brief, that “[t]he output signal of Seefeldt is not an indication of gas density to be determined, rather it is an indication of whether the gas density inside a container is above or below a predetermined threshold.” We are not persuaded of error by this argument as it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites that the “signal is indicative of gas density.” Claim 1 does not recite that the signal is an indication of the density to be determined. That is, claim 1 is not limited to calculating a value of the gas density, but rather is broad enough to provide any indication indicative of gas density. Appellants have admitted that Seefeldt provides an indication whether the density of a gas in a chamber is above or below a threshold. We consider this to be a signal indicative of a gas density, as the signal has different values based on 10 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 the gas density. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Seefeldt teaches providing a signal indicative of a gas density. Rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, and 9 through 11. As the two issues raised by Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 1 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, and 9 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz (‘541) in view of Delatorre and Seefeldt. Rejection of claims 2, 6, and 8 Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejections of claims 2, 6, and 8 assert that they are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 1 have not persuaded us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 6, and 8 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. SUMMARY In summary, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 11 is affirmed. 11 Appeal 2009-001769 Application 11/007,681 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD ANTHONY D. KURTZ 136 E. SADDLE RIVER ROAD SADDLE RIVER, NJ 07450 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation