Ex Parte Boudreau et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2019

14275832 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/275,832 05/12/2014
23370 7590 03/15/2019
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 PEACHTREE STREET
SUITE 2800
ATLANTA, GA 30309
Frank J. Boudreau JR.
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.
035361-1108311 5935
EXAMINER
ZAKARIA, AKM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2019 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK J. BOUDREAU, JR. and MATT KRAUS
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9-21, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed May 12,
2014 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated December 13, 2016 ("Final
Act."); Appeal Brief filed May 15, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer
dated October 4, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed December 4, 201 7
("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is Applicant, Landis+Gyr, Inc. (Bib Sheet 1 ), which, according
to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
3 Claim 8 has been cancelled. Final Act. 2; Appeal Br. 2 ("Claims 1-7 and
9-21 are pending in the application.")
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
The Claimed Subject Matter
Appellant's disclosure relates generally to electricity measurements,
and more particularly, to a sensor for use in current measurements such as
those carried out in an electricity meter. Spec. 1; Abstract. According to the
Appellant's Specification the sensor comprises a Rogowski coil having a
core and a coil with a center tap for connecting to a reference voltage, and a
common mode rejection circuit operably coupled to the Rogowski coil
winding. See Spec. 4, 11-12, Figs. 2, 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A sensor for use in an electricity meter comprising:
a non-magnetic core having a first winding
wrapped thereon, the first winding having a center-tap
coupled to a reference voltage; and
a common mode rejection circuit operably coupled
to the first winding, the common mode rejection circuit
operably coupled to the reference voltage, the common
mode rejection circuit comprising a differential amplifier
having a first input, a second input and an output, a first
resistive circuit path from a first end of the first winding
to the first input, and a second resistive circuit path from
a second end of the first winding to the second input.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) (key disputed claim language italicized and
bolded).
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Cota
Schluter et al.
("Schluter")
us 5,502,374
US 2010/0090789 Al
2
Mar. 26, 1996
Apr. 15, 2010
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
Leighton US 2013/0002512 Al Jan. 3, 2013
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, 14--18, and 21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Cota ("Rejection 1"). Final
Act. 4.
2. Claims 6, 9-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cota ("Rejection 2"). Final Act. 9.
3. Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cota in view of Schluter ("Rejection 3"). Final Act. 13.
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cota in view of Leighton ("Rejection 4"). Final Act. 14.
OPINION
Rejection 1
Claims 1. 4. 5
Appellant argues claims 1, 4, and 5 as a group. Appeal Br. 10-12, 14.
We select claim 1 as representative and claims 4 and 5 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that Cota discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 and, therefore, anticipates the claim. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Cota,
Figs. 4--11, 6:62---63).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because Cota fails to disclose "a second resistive circuit path from a
3
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
second end of the first winding to the second input." Appeal Br. 10-11;
Reply Br. 2--4.
In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection is in error
because neither resistor 93 nor resistor 119 of Figure 4 of Cota, either alone
or in combination, form a resistive circuit path, as claimed. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant contends that the "resistor 93 does not form a resistive path that
reaches the alleged second input (inverting input of amplifier 114 ), and the
resistor 119 does not form a resistive path that is from the second end of the
first winding." Id. at 12. Appellant further contends that the circuit path
from the second end of the winding 100 to the non-inverting terminal of
amplifier 114, which includes the resistor 93 and the resistor 119, is not a
resistive path; and the path through op-amp 116 is "neither a resistor, nor a
component that produces the electrical characteristics of resistor." Id. at 12.
Appellant argues that the "Examiner has presented no evidence, nor
any convincing line of technical reasoning, to establish that one of ordinary
skill in the art would define a 'resistive circuit path' as one that includes
active amplification elements, such as the amplifier 116." Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and for the reasons
provided by the Examiner at pages 6-8 of the Answer and pages 4--5 of the
Final Action. In particular, on the record before us, we find that a
preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's analysis and
determination that Cota discloses the "second resistive circuit path from a
second end of the first winding to the second input" recitation of the claim.
Cota, Figs. 4--11, 6:62---63.
4
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
As the Examiner finds (Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 4--5), Figure 4 of Cota
discloses a first resistive circuit path ( resistor 91) from a first end ( top end of
winding of core 100) of the first winding to the first input ("+" input of
differential amplifier 114), and a second resistive circuit path (resistor 93 or
resistor 119) from a second end (bottom end of winding of core 100) of the
first winding to the second input("-" input of amplifier 114), as recited in
the claim. See Examiner's Annotated Version of Figure 4 of Cota at page 7
of the Answer.
As the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 7-8), Appellant is, in
essence, arguing limitations that do not appear in the claim, i.e., reading the
claim to require that a second resistor element be directly coupled or
connected between a second end of the first winding and the non-inverting
input of the single op-amp differential amplifier and no other electrical
elements/components. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184-85 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) ("[L ]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification."). Moreover, because claim 1 uses the transitional phrase
"comprising," the claim does not necessarily preclude the presence of other
electrical elements/ components.
Rather, based on a preponderance of evidence in the record, we
concur with the Examiner's determination (Ans. 8) that under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
interpreted the recitation "resistive circuit path" as a path in a circuit that
includes a resistor or resistance property and may or may not include other
electrical properties or elements. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that during prosecution, claims
5
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification).
Appellant's contentions at pages 10-12 of the Appeal Brief and pages
1-3 of the Reply Brief regarding the "resistive circuit path" recitation and
disagreement as to the Examiner's underlying factual findings in this regard,
without more, are insufficient to rebut or otherwise establish reversible error
in the Examiner's findings and determination in this regard. Cf SmithKline
Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
( stating that "mere statements of disagreement ... as to the existence of
factual disputes do not amount to a developed argument").
We do not find persuasive Appellant's assertions at page 12 of the
Appeal Brief that "[ n ]either the resistor 93 nor the resistor 119 ... form a
resistive circuit path" and the path through op-amp 116 is "neither a resistor,
nor a component that produces the electrical characteristics of resistor"
because they are conclusory and unsupported by persuasive evidence in the
record. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that mere
lawyer's arguments or conclusory statements, which are unsupported by
concrete factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's discussion in the Answer as to
what constitutes the "second resistive circuit path" of Cota contains a new
allegation and, therefore, "impermissibly asserts a new ground of rejection
for claim 1." Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive. It is well established that
there is no new ground of rejection when the basic thrust of the rejection
remains the same. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-1303 (CCPA 1976);
6
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Adler, 723 F.3d
1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Where the statutory basis for the rejection
remains the same and the evidence relied upon in support of the rejection
remains the same, a change in the discussion of, or rationale in support of,
the rejection does not necessarily constitute a new ground of rejection.
Kronig, 539 F.2d at 1303.
Contrary to what Appellant argues (Reply Br. 4--5), we do not find
that the Examiner's discussion in the Answer regarding Cota's disclosure of
the claimed "second resistive circuit path" contains any new allegations or
changes the basic thrust of the Examiner's rejection stated in the Final
Office Action. Compare Ans. 6-8 with, Final Act. 4--5. The fact that the
Examiner provides an Annotated Version of Figure 4 of Cota in the Answer
that depicts the "second resistive circuit path" and elaborates upon what is
taught by the previously-cited and relied upon portion of the reference,
without more, does not constitute a new ground of rejection. See In re DBC,
545 F.3d 1373, 1382 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Moreover, it is well-settled that
[T]he purpose of a reply brief is to ensure the Appellant
the opportunity to have the last word on an issue raised
by the Examiner. The reply brief enables the Appellant to
address any new grounds of rejection the Examiner may
have raised in the answer.
Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010).
Thus, to the extent Appellant considered the Examiner's Answer to
contain a new ground of rejection, Appellant had ample notice of that
alleged new ground of rejection, and the full and fair opportunity to respond
to any such ground in the reply brief.
7
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection as to claims 1, 4, and
5.
Claims 2 and 3
Appellant presents additional argument for the patentability of
independent claim 2. Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5.
Claim 2 recites:
A sensor for use in an electricity meter comprising:
a non-magnetic core having a first winding
wrapped thereon, the first winding having a center-tap
coupled to a reference voltage; and
a common mode rejection circuit operably coupled
to the first winding, the common mode rejection circuit
operably coupled to reference the reference voltage, the
common mode rejection circuit comprising
a differential amplifier having a first input, a
second input and an output;
a first resistive path coupled from a first end of the
first winding to the first input;
a second resistive path coupled from a second end
of the first winding to the second input;
a first capacitive path coupled from the first input
to the output;
a second capacitive path coupled from the second
input to the reference voltage.
Appeal Br. 20-21 (Claims App.) (key disputed claim language italicized and
bolded). 4
4 Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites two additional limitations.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
8
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
The Examiner determines that Cota discloses all of the limitations of
claim 2 and, thus, concludes that the reference anticipates the claim. Final
Act. 5---6. Regarding the recitation "a first capacitive path coupled from the
first input to the output," the Examiner relies on Figures 4 and 6 of Cota for
disclosing this limitation of the claim. Id. at 6; Ans. 10-11. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Figure 4 of Cota teaches that "capacitor 95 is in the
path between the first input(+ of 114) to the output (output node 115 of 114,
thru elements 116, 119)" and Figure 6 of Cota teaches a "direct capacitor
only integrating amplifier connection" ( Ans. 10-11 ); and thus, determines
that "one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude Cota's teaching[s]
anticipate claim 2 as claimed" (id. at 11 ).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 should be
reversed because Cota does not disclose "a first capacitive path coupled
from the first input to the output," as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant's argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection because the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Cota discloses the "first capacitive path
coupled from the first input to the output" recitation of the claim. In
particular, we concur with Appellant (see id.) that neither Figure 4 nor
Figure 6 of Cota teaches this limitation and one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have considered the path including "capacitor 95" identified by
the Examiner as disclosing or corresponding to a "first capacitive path," as
claimed.
The Examiner's assertion that "one of ordinary skill in the art would
conclude Cota's teaching[s] anticipate claim 2 as claimed" (Ans. 11) is
conclusory and, without more, insufficient to sustain the Examiner's
9
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
rejection. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding
"rejections ... cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements").
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection as to claim 2.
Because claim 3 depends from claim 2, we also cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejection of as to claim 2.
Claims 14-18
Appellant presents additional argument for the patentability of
independent claim 14. Appeal Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 7.
Claim 14 recites:
An arrangement for use in an electricity meter,
compnsmg:
a current coil operably coupled to receive power
line current provided to a load, the current coil supported
by a meter housing;
a non-magnetic core having a first winding
wrapped thereon, the first winding having a center-tap
coupled to be at a reference voltage; the first winding
configured to sense the power line current on the current
coil and generate a current measurement signal
therefrom; and
a common mode rejection circuit operably coupled
to the first winding, the common mode rejection circuit
operably coupled receive the current measurement signal
and to generate an output signal representative of the
power line current, the common mode rejection circuit
including a differential amplifier having a first input, a
second input and an output, and a capacitive path from
the second input to the reference voltage, wherein the
capacitive path taken apart from all other elements of the
arrangement has a transfer function that is capacitive in
behavior.
10
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) (key disputed claim language italicized and
bolded). 5
The Examiner determines that Cota discloses all of the limitations of
claim 14 and, thus, concludes that the reference anticipates the claim. Final
Act. 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 should be
reversed because Cota does not disclose "a capacitive path from the second
input to the reference voltage," as required by the claim. Appeal Br. 14.
We agree with Appellant's argument in this regard. On the record
before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Cota discloses the "capacitive path from
the second input to the reference voltage" recitation of the claim. As
Appellant correctly points out (Appeal Br. 15) and contrary to the
Examiner's findings (Ans. 13-14; Final Act. 7), capacitor 126 of Figure 4 of
Cota does not form a "capacitive path" between any input of element 14 or
element 16 and the bias voltage 102, and the Examiner does not identify
sufficient evidence or provide an adequate technical explanation explaining
how or why Figure 4 of Cota and, in particular, Cota's teachings regarding
the configuration and placement of capacitor 126 would have disclosed to
one of ordinary skill in the art "a capacitive path from the second input to the
reference voltage" configured in the manner claimed.
The Examiner's assertions that a "circuit path can be constructed that
goes from node 102 to inverting input of 114 that goes thru capacitor
element 126" (Ans. 13-14) and "[i]f all other elements are taken apart 126
5 Claims 15-18 each depends from claim 14. Appeal Br. 23-24 (Claims
App.).
11
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
will be capacitive in behavior" (id. at 13) are conclusory, speculative, and
unsupported by sufficient evidence in the record. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection as to claim 14.
Because claims 15-18 each depends from claim 14, we also cannot sustain
the Examiner's rejection as to claims 15-18.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
wherein each of the first resistive path and second
resistive path, taken apart from all other elements of the
arrangement, has a transfer function that is resistive in
behavior.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (key disputed claim language italicized and
bolded).
The Examiner determines that Cota discloses all of the limitations of
claim 21 and concludes that the reference anticipates the claim. Final Act. 9
( citing Cota, Figs. 4--11 ). In particular, the Examiner finds that Figure 4 of
Cota discloses the arrangement of claim 1, wherein each of the first resistive
path ( resistor 91) and second resistive path ( resistor 93 or 119), taken apart
from all other elements of the arrangement, has a transfer function that is
resistive in behavior. Id. at 9.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 should be
reversed for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. We do not find
this argument persuasive of reversible error for the same reasons previously
discussed above in affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellant further argues that the rejection of claim 21 should be
reversed because Cota does not disclose the "taken apart from all other
elements of the arrangement, has a transfer function that is resistive in
12
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
behavior" recitation of the claim. Reply Br. 6. In particular, Appellant
contends that although the Examiner finds that the resistor 93 or resistor 119
elements of Figure 4 disclose the "second resistive path" and each element
has resistive transfer functions, the Examiner does not identify or provide an
adequate response explaining
how the path through the resistor 93, the operational
amplifier 116, and the resistor 119 of Cota (Fig. 4), taken
apart from all other elements in the circuit, has a transfer
function that is resistive in behavior.
Id. at 6. In other words, Appellant principally argues the Examiner has
failed to establish that the "second resistive path" identified by the Examiner
in Figure 4 of Cota "has a transfer function that is resistive in behavior," as
recited in the claim.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning provided
by the Examiner at pages 6-8 and 11-12 of the Answer and pages 4--5 and 9
of the Final Office Action, and for the reasons previously discussed above in
sustaining the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In particular, as previously
discussed above with respect to Appellant's argument regarding the
"resistive circuit path" recitation of claim 1, Appellant's argument regarding
claim 21 is misplaced because it is based on limitations not recited in the
claim and too narrowly construes the "resistive path" recitation.
Thus, for principally the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, a
preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's determination (Ans. 8,
11-12) that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the recitation "resistive path"
13
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
of claim 21 as a path in a circuit that includes a resistor or resistance
property and may or may not include other electrical properties or elements.
Moreover, applying the proper interpretation of "resistive path" to
claim 21, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does support
the Examiner's determination that the resistor 93 or resistor 119 elements of
Figure 4 disclose the "second resistive path" and "taken apart from all other
elements of the arrangement, has a transfer function that is resistive in
behavior" recitations of the claim. Cota, Fig. 4, 6:62---63, 7:1-3, 7:10-11.
Appellant's assertions at page 6 of the Reply Brief regarding "a path
including the operational amplifier 116" are largely conclusory, and without
more, insufficient to rebut or otherwise establish reversible error in the
Examiner's analysis and determination in this regard.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection as to claim 21.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Cota. In particular, we affirm
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Cota and we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 14--18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being
anticipated by Cota.
Rejection 2
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 6, 9-12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cota, which we refer to as Rejection 2, for principally the
same reasons provided by Appellant at pages 16-1 7 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 7-8 of the Reply Brief. We add the following.
14
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
Claim 6 recites:
A sensor for use in an electricity meter comprising:
a non-magnetic core having a first winding
wrapped thereon, the first winding having a center-tap
coupled to a reference voltage; and
a common mode rejection circuit operably coupled
to the first winding, the common mode rejection circuit
operably coupled to the reference voltage, wherein the
common mode rejection circuit includes a single op-
amp differential integrator circuit.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded).
The Examiner determines that Cota teaches or suggests a sensor
satisfying all of the limitations of claim 6 and thus, concludes that the
reference would have rendered the claim obvious. Final Act. 9-10 ( citing
Cota, Figs. 4, 6, 11; 5:40-41, 6:62---63). The Examiner relies primarily on
Figures 4 and 11 of Cota for teaching or suggesting nearly all of the
limitations of claim 6, but finds that Figures 4 and 11 do not explicitly teach
"wherein the common mode rejection circuit includes a single op- amp
differential integrator circuit." Id. at 10. The Examiner, however, relies on
Figure 6 of Cota for teaching this limitation of the claim. Id. at 10. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Figure 6 of Cota teaches a common mode
rejection circuit that includes a single op-amp differential integrator circuit
(Integrator 308).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cota
15
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
embodiment of figure( s) 4 and 11 by having wherein the
common mode rejection circuit includes a single op- amp
differential integrator circuit as taught by Cota
embodiment of figure( s) 6 in order to "with integration
over time the AC noise will be cancelled out."
Id. at 10 ( citing Cota, 5 :40-41 ).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 should be
reversed because the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case that
the embodiments described in Figures 4, 6, and 11 of Cota would have
rendered the claim obvious. Appeal Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 7-9. In particular,
Appellant contends that "the Examiner has not identified how those circuits
could possibly be combined, much less whether or how any such
combination would yield predictable results." Appeal Br. 16.
The weight of the evidence supports Appellant's argument. The
Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to Appellant's claimed
invention based on the Figures 4, 6, and 11 of Cota and for the reasons
proposed by the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (holding that the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness).
As Appellant correctly points out (Appeal Br. 16-17), although the
Examiner identifies circuit 308 of Figure 6 of Cota as a common mode
rejection circuit that includes a single op-amp differential integrator circuit,
the Examiner does not adequately explain how circuit 308 of Figure 6 of
Cota would be implemented in the circuit of Figure 4, which employs a
completely different configuration and circuit design, including having
substantially more electrical components/elements interconnected in a
different arrangement than the circuit depicted in Figure 4. Compare
16
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
Cota, 8:53-60 and Fig. 6 with, Cota, 6:58---64 and Figure 4. For example, as
Appellant notes at page 17 of the Appeal Brief, the circuit in Figure 6 of
Cota does not employ a center-tap winding, which is included in Figure 4 of
Cota and recited in the claims.
The Examiner also does not identify evidence or provide reasoning
sufficient to support a finding that one of ordinary skill would have had
reason to modify Figure 4 of Cota to include the single op-amp differential
integrator circuit 308 of Figure 6 of Cota, as would be required to arrive at
the claimed invention. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (requiring "reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness") ( quoting In re Kahn, 441 F .3d at 988). As
Appellant explains (Appeal Br. 17), the Examiner's reference to and reliance
on the discussion at column 5, lines 40-41 of Cota is not persuasive because
that passage is unrelated to the circuit in Figure 6 of Cota and, without more,
does not teach or suggest a reason for one of ordinary skill to implement the
integrator circuit of embodiment of Figure 6 of Cota into the circuit of
Figure 4 of Cota.
The Examiner does not direct us to any teaching or suggestion in the
prior art regarding the technical feasibility of incorporating the integrator
circuit of Figure 6 of Cota into the circuit of Figure 4 of Cota; or why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success
in doing so.
The Examiner's statements that it would be obvious to one of the
ordinary skill to "mix and match features from circuit 1 and circuit 2"
(Ans. 17) and the "feature in question is a current integrator which is a
17
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
commonly known circuit feature or element in the art" (id. at 17) are not
persuasive because they are conclusory. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
Because claim 9-11 each depends from claim 6 and claims 12 and 19 each
recites the same "wherein the common mode rejection circuit includes a
single op-amp differential integrator circuit" recitation as claim 6, we also
cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 9-12,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cota.
Rejection 3
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites "a Faraday shield
disposed proximate to the first winding, and operably coupled to be at a
same voltage as the center-tap." Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Cota and Schluter
suggests a sensor satisfying all of the limitations of claim 7, and thus,
concludes that the combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
Final Act. 13-14.
In response to the Examiner's rejection of claim 7, Appellant relies on
the same arguments previously presented above in response to the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. We do not find Appellant's
arguments persuasive of reversible error for the same reasons previously
discussed above in affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection as to claim 7.
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for principally the same reasons discussed above for
18
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination
of Cota and Schluter.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 14 and further recites "wherein each of
the first resistive path and second resistive path, taken apart from all other
elements of the arrangement, has a transfer function that is resistive in
behavior." Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Cota and Schluter
suggests all of the limitations of claim 20 and that the prior art combination
would have rendered the claim obvious. Final Act. 14.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 20 should be
reversed for the same reasons presented and previously discussed above in
reversing the Examiner's rejection of claim 14. Appeal Br. 18.
We agree with Appellant's argument in this regard and thus, cannot
sustain the Examiner's rejection as to claim 20.
Accordingly, because claim 20 depends from claim 14 and the
deficiencies in the Examiner's analysis regarding the disclosures of Cota and
claim 14 are not remedied by the Examiner's findings regarding Schluter or
the combination of Cota and Schluter, for principally the same reasons
discussed above in reversing the Examiner's rejection of claim 14, we also
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combination of Cota and Schluter.
19
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
Rejection 4
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the first
winding portion and the second winding portion are bifilar windings."
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Cota and Leighton
suggests a sensor satisfying all of the limitations of claim 13 and concludes
that the combination would have rendered the claim obvious. Final Act. 14--
15.
In response to the Examiner's rejection of claim 13, Appellant relies
on the same arguments previously presented above in response to the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. We do not find Appellant's
arguments persuasive of reversible error for the same reasons previously
discussed above in affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for principally the same reasons discussed above for
affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination
of Cota and Leighton.
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Cota is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combination of Cota and Schluter is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combination of Cota and Leighton is affirmed.
20
Appeal2018-001698
Application 14/275,832
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, and 14--18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Cota is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 9-12, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cota is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combination of Cota and Schluter is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART
21