Ex Parte Ishiguro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12259525 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
12/259,525 10/28/2008 Yasuhiro ISHIGURO Q110711 1138
03/29/201765565 7590
SUGHRUE-265550
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213
EXAMINER
CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YASUHIRO ISHIGURO, SATORU ABE,
AKIHIRO KOBAYASHI, and TAKAYUKI SUMI
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
Technology Center 1700
Heard: March 14, 2017
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—6. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NGK SPARK PLUG
CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed October 28, 2008, the
Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action delivered June 18, 2013, Appellants’
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a sensor control device for detecting the
concentration of a specific gas component, wherein the device corrects a gas
component concentration detection result acquired by the gas sensor in
response to a circuit board temperature detection result acquired by a
temperature sensing element mounted on the circuit board. Spec. 1 5.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A sensor control device comprising:
a circuit board separated from and electrically
connectable to a gas sensor, said gas sensor comprising a
detecting element configured to output a concentration response
signal in response to the concentration of a specific gas
component;
a detecting element driving unit mounted on the circuit
board, the detecting element driving unit being configured to:
control the gas sensor;
calculate gas concentration information based on
the concentration response signal; and
output the calculated gas concentration
information to an external circuit;
a temperature sensing element mounted on the circuit
board and configured to output a temperature response signal in
response to a temperature of the circuit board;
a temperature calculating unit mounted on the circuit
board and configured to calculate temperature information of
the circuit board based on the temperature response signal; and
a concentration information correcting unit mounted on
the circuit board and configured to correct the gas concentration
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed November 18, 2013, the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans.) mailed October 2, 2014, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed December 2, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
information calculated by the detecting element driving unit
based on the temperature information calculated by the
temperature calculating unit, said concentration information
correcting unit removing an error from the concentration
information due to influence of heat transferred from the circuit
board to the detecting element driving unit,
wherein the gas sensor comprises a heater element
configured to activate the detecting element,
wherein said sensor control device further comprises a
heater element driving unit mounted on the circuit board and
configured to supply driving current to the heater element, and
wherein the temperature sensing element is located closer
to the detecting element driving unit than the heater element
driving unit, or the temperature sensing element is arranged
within the detecting element driving unit.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1 and 3—6 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1—6 of
copending U.S. Patent Application No. 12/265,363, filed November 8,
2008, and issued on December 13, 2016 as U.S. Patent No.
9,518,954;3 and
2. Claims 1 and 3—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Inagaki4 in view of Aas.5
3 Although the Examiner designated the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection as provisional (Non-Final Act. 9), we note that the corresponding
copending application issued subsequent to the date of the Examiner’s
Answer. Accordingly, we no longer designate this rejection as provisional.
In addition, due to cancellation of one of the copending claims prior to
issuance, there are only six claims in the copending patent.
4 US 6,635,161 B2, issued October 21, 2003.
5 US 2005/0197795 Al, published September 8, 2005.
3
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1: Obviousness-type Double Patenting
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and
3—6 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1—6 of copending U.S. Patent No. 9,518,954
because Appellants do not contest this rejection.6 Compare Non-Final Act.
9 and Ans. 2 with Appeal Br. 8—12.
Rejection 2: Obviousness over Inagaki in view of Aas
Appellants do not argue the claims separately, instead focusing only
on the limitations of claim 1, which we select to address Appellants’
arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants’ claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated
obviousness rejection for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. We offer the following
for emphasis.
6 See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed.
Mar. 2014) (“if a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed
in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waive any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner
subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
4
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 1
and 3—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies upon the combined
disclosures of Inagaki and Aas. Ans. 2—7. The Examiner finds, and
Appellants do not dispute, that Inagaki teaches a sensor control device as
recited in claim 1 except for the detection of the temperature of the circuit
board itself via a temperature sensing element and temperature calculating
unit mounted on the circuit board. Compare Ans. 3^4 with Appeal Br. 8—12
and Reply Br. 4—7.
According to the Examiner, Inagaki does not disclose the detection of
the circuit board temperature via a temperature sensing element and
temperature calculating unit (for the detection of the temperature of the
circuit board) mounted on the circuit board. Ans. 4. To account for these
differences, the Examiner relies on Aas’ disclosure, finding that Aas teaches
temperature drift on circuit boards and chips occurs with use which causes
the output voltage to stray from the actual accurate reading. Id. at 4—5. The
Examiner further finds Aas teaches correcting for these drifts by placing a
temperature sensor and a voltage correcting unit on the chip or circuit board
for monitoring the chip or circuit board temperature and correcting the
voltage based on temperature variations. Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes
it would have been obvious to correct for the concentration detection result
of Inagaki due to temperature variations of the circuit board by placing a
temperature sensor and temperature calculating unit on the circuit board as
taught by Aas. Id. The Examiner also determines that placing the
temperature sensor within the detecting element driving unit which performs
the voltage output analysis would provide the most accurate temperature
5
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
correction because Aas teaches “it is this voltage output which is most
effected by temperature drift or interference of the circuit board.” Id. at 6.
Appellants contend that Inagaki fails to teach a temperature sensor for
detecting the temperature of the circuit board. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants
also argue that Inagaki is limited to “compensating for variations in
measured concentration based on temperature variations of the mixed gas” at
the sensor rather than on the circuit board. Id. at 10—11. With regard to Aas,
Appellants argue that Aas fails to recognize that temperature variance of a
circuit board affects the sensor accuracy and, therefore, the accuracy of the
concentration calculation. Id. at 11—12. In addition, Appellants urge that
“Aas does not disclose structure for temperature compensation of an output
(a sensor output) flowing through a circuit board on which both a detecting
element driving unit and a heater driving unit are mounted.” Reply Br. 4.
As such, Appellants contend that the ordinary artisan would have not
motivation to modify Inagaki in view of Aas. Id. at 4—5.
Moreover, Appellants contend that because Inagaki and Aas fail to
teach the problem addressed by Appellants, there is no basis for the
Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
placed the temperature detecting element at or close to the detecting element
driving unit because this location would provide the most accurate
temperature correction for the output voltage. Reply Br. 5. Appellants
argue that Inagaki fails to teach or suggest such a sensing element and, thus,
fails to teach or suggest placing this sensing element either closer to the
detecting element driving unit than the heater control unit or within the
detecting element driving unit. Appeal Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 5. In this
regard, Appellants urge that claim 1 is not directed to the location of the
6
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
sensor relative to either the detecting element or the heating elements, but
instead to the location of the sensor relative to the units which drive these
elements. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants also argue that Aas does not disclose
or fairly suggest specific placement of the temperature sensing element as
required by the claims. Id. at 11.
Initially, we note that although Appellants correctly contend that
Inagaki and Aas fail to recognize that the temperature variance of a circuit
board carrying a heating element driving circuit can affect accuracy of a
concentration calculation, Appellants acknowledge that correcting the
concentration detection result for deviations between target and detected
temperatures of a sensor to improve precision of the concentration detecting
operation was known at the time of the invention. Spec. 13. Appellants
also acknowledge that electronic components generally have temperature
dependent characteristics at ambient temperatures and that, “in the case
where electronic components mounted on the circuit board of the sensor
control device for controlling sensors are thermally influenced at ambient
temperatures, the detection results of a detection current in response to NOx
concentration may deviate.” Id. at 14. In addition, Appellants acknowledge
that designing electronic circuits using electronic components having less
temperature dependent characteristics to address deviation in concentration
detection results due to thermal influence on these circuits was also known
in the art. Id. Thus, the problem Appellants’ invention addresses was
known at the time of the invention.
Aas is directed to a solution to this problem. Aas teaches
compensating for the effect of temperature drift of the voltage output of an
electronic component by placing a temperature sensing element on the
7
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
electronic component. Aas, Abstract. It is reasonable to expect that one of
ordinary skill in the art, when looking for a solution to the known problem of
deviation in concentration detection results due to thermal influence on these
circuits, would have looked to Aas for a solution to this problem. Thus, we
are not persuaded that Appellants have identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have applied Aas’ teaching to address the problem of temperature
dependence on electronic components in circuit boards such as Inagaki’s
with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, although Appellants correctly contend that neither Inagaki
nor Aas discloses specific placement of a temperature sensing element as
required by the claims, Aas teaches correcting the voltage output of a chip
due to temperature variances of the chip by placing a temperature sensor on
the chip. Aas, Abstract. Based on Aas’ teaching and the fact that the
problem of temperature variance of the circuit board causing deviations in
detected concentration results was known, it is reasonable to expect, as the
Examiner determined, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have placed
the temperature sensing element on the circuit board at a location close to
the voltage needing temperature compensation — in this case, in or near to
the detecting element driving unit. SeeKSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Appellants have
neither argued nor established that the specific placement of the temperature
8
Appeal 2015-002079
Application 12/259,525
sensing element as required in the claims is beyond the ordinary skill in the
art.
It follows, therefore, that we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection based on the combination of Inagaki and Aas.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3—6
under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1—6 of copending U.S. Patent No. 9,518,954, and under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inagaki in view of Aas, 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(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
9