Ex Parte Cudini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 2014

10584276 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

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. 10/584,276 05/21/2007 Robert Cudini CUDI3001 /FJD 4085 23364 7590 03/26/2014 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC 625 SLATERS LANE FOURTH FLOOR ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176 EXAMINER DEVITO, ALEX T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2856 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT CUDINI, BRUNO WORRETH, IVO BRAEGGER, CEDRIC JEANNERET, and KILIAN STERN __________ Appeal 2012-002922 Application 10/584,276 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002922 Application 10/584,276 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 16-31. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a modular measuring device including a sensor module and an electronics module in which the sensor and electronics are arranged (Spec. 1:3-5). Claim 16 is illustrative (key limitations in dispute italicized): 16. A modular measuring device, comprising: a sensor module including a sensor compartment, in which a physical-to-electrical sensor is arranged; an electronics module, including an electronics compartment, in which a measuring device electronics is arranged; a first connecting element mounted on said electronics module and electrically connected with said measuring device electronics; a second connecting element mounted on said sensor module and electrically connected with said sensor; and a seal, wherein: said sensor module and said electronics module are releasably, mechanically connected together, accompanied by the formation of a connecting compartment lying between said sensor compartment and said electronics compartment; said two connecting elements are electrically connected together, so that said measuring device electronics and said sensor are electrically coupled together; and said two connecting elements, connected together, are accommodated in the connecting compartment formed between said sensor compartment and said electronics compartment; Appeal 2012-002922 Application 10/584,276 3 said seal is so arranged in said connecting compartment, that it laterally surrounds at least one of said connecting elements and contacts with an external side at least one side wall of said connecting compartment; and at least one side wall of at least one of said two connecting elements includes at least one essentially straight groove and at least one side wall of said connecting compartment includes at least one, essentially straight projection corresponding with said groove of said connecting element; and being received by said groove of said connecting element; and/or at least one side wall of at least one of said two connecting elements includes at least one essentially straight projection and at least one side wall of said connecting compartment includes an essentially straight groove corresponding with the projection of said connecting element; and being received by the groove of said connecting compartment. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 16-31 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dreyer et al. (US 6,539,819 B1 issued Apr. 1, 2003) in view of Olsson (US 5,370,557 issued Dec. 6, 1994). 2. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Dreyer and Olsson and further in view of Steinhauser et al. (US 5,692,681 issued Dec. 2, 1997). Appellants argue the subject matter common to claims 16-31 (App. Br. 7- 9). We select claim 16 as representative. Claims 17-31 will stand or fall with our analysis of claim 16. Appeal 2012-002922 Application 10/584,276 4 ISSUE Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Dreyer discloses a sensor module and an electronics module as claimed in claim 16? We decide this issue in the negative. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in “conclud[ing] that the measuring device of Dreyer ‘is modular.’” App. Br. 8. Appellants assert that “[a] modular design is one that includes parts created separately and then combined in a larger assembly. They are complete and identifiable in their completeness. Nothing is added, nor do they require any structure in order to be usable.” Id. at 7-8. Appellants contend that “[i]f one were to combine the electronics and sensor element of Dreyer alone, a functional assembly would not result” (id. at 8). Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s combination of Olsson’s groove and projection connection with Dreyer’s modular assembly is improper because it lacks a “technical basis” (id. at 9). The Examiner responds that Dreyer “unambiguously reads on the claimed limitations” when it states “another advantage of the sensor of the present invention is that it is modular. The electronics and sensor element are separate components which can be used independent of one another.” Ans. 15 (quoting Dreyer col. 2, ll. 30-34.) The Examiner points out that the assembly of Dreyer functions as a “sensor with moisture protection comprising an electronics section and a sensor section.” Id. Regarding the combination of Dreyer and Olsson, the Examiner responds “Dreyer is concerning connecting two modular pieces. Olsson teaches how to uniquely Appeal 2012-002922 Application 10/584,276 5 define plug and receptable pairs to mate multiple modules of electrical equipment.” Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellants do not dispute that the assembly of Dreyer functions as a sensor with moisture protection. Appellants argue that “Dreyer states that the sensor may be modular, not the sensor element.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants further contend that “Olsson does not mention the term ‘module’ in defining its components” and state “precision in language is important in Patent Law.” Id. The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. We adopt the Examiner’s analysis on pages 5-7 of the Answer as our own. We add the following discussion primarily for emphasis. Dreyer discloses that its sensor assembly is modular and has a section that is a sensor and a section that is electronics and that the components can be used independently and are linked via a connection element. Dreyer col. 2, ll. 31-34; see also id. at col. 1 ll. 5-8. The Examiner reasonably finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such disclosure to mean that the sensor section and the electronics section are each modular and connected to make a modular design. Though Appellants contend that the assembly and the sensor element are not modular, we do not agree. As noted by Appellants, Dreyer uses the term “sensor” and “sensor element” differently. See Reply Br. 2. Dreyer uses the term “sensor” alone to refer to the assembly and explicitly states that it is modular. Compare Dreyer col. 2, ll. 31-32 to col. 1, ll. 5-6. Dreyer then describes the sensor element section and the electronics section as being separate components that are capable of being used independently from one another. Dreyer col. 2, ll. 32-34. Appellants have not distinguished persuasively the elements described in Appeal 2012-002922 Application 10/584,276 6 Dreyer from the definition of modular design submitted in the Evidence Appendix to the Appeal Brief, let alone the language of claim 16. See App. Br. 7. Regarding the combination of Dreyer and Olsson, Appellants do not dispute that Dreyer discloses a connection between the sensor element and the electronics element. Nor do Appellants dispute that Olsson teaches the claimed connecting elements. Appellants dispute only the characterization of Olsson as modular and the Examiner’s reason for combining Dreyer’s modular elements with Olsson’s groove connection. However, Olsson explicitly states the advantage of “a keying system that uniquely defines plug and receptacle pairs that are to be mated” in “electrical equipment having multiple modules” (Olsson col. 1, ll. 12-15, Abst.). Thus Olsson provides an advantage for its connection system and a reason to substitute its connection system for the connection element of Dreyer. Appellants’ assertion that the language of the art of record is not sufficiently precise is also not persuasive. It is not necessary that an obviousness analysis “seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellants have not directed us to any evidence in this record to establish that one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have understood the disclosures of Dreyer and Olsson as teaching modular designs and connecting modular designs. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. Appeal 2012-002922 Application 10/584,276 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. ORDER AFFIRMED cdc