Ex Parte Maier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

14114233 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/114,233 10/28/2013
46726 7590 09/12/2018
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Maier
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.
2011P00258WOUS 4816
EXAMINER
HOANG, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS MAIER, STEP AN SCHMAL, and
PETER SCHUHBACK
Appeal2018-001638
Application 14/114,233 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23-37. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, "[t]he invention relates to a printed circuit
board for a domestic appliance. . . . The invention also relates to a domestic
1 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is BSH Bosch und
Siemens Hausgerate GmbH." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001638
Application 14/114,233
appliance that has at least one such printed circuit board[, and] ... to a
method for operating an electrically operated domestic appliance having at
least one printed circuit board." Spec. ,r 1. Below, we reproduce
independent claim 14 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
14. A printed circuit board for a domestic appliance,
said printed circuit board comprising:
a plate-type substrate having a first side and a second side
opposite the first side;
a first conductive path provided on the first side of the
substrate and adapted for supply with a load current; and
a magnetic field sensor provided on the second side of the
substrate and configured to read a magnetic field that can be
generated by the load current in the first conductive path,
wherein the magnetic field sensor is a Hall sensor.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Rohe et al.
(US 6,583,613 Bl, iss. June 24, 2003) ("Rohe");
II. Claims 14, 17, 21, 24, 25, and 29-33 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Rohe and Hebing et al. (US 6,310,470 Bl,
iss. Oct. 30, 2001) ("He bing");
III. Claims 26-28 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Rohe, Hebing, Gerola et al. (US 2003/0071031 Al, pub.
Apr. 17, 2003) ("Gero la"), and Tak et al. (KR2002-0052694 A,
pub. July 4, 2002) ("Tak"); and
2
Appeal2018-001638
Application 14/114,233
IV. Claims 18, 20, 23, and 34--36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rohe, Rebing, and Tak.
ANALYSIS
Re;ection I
Appellants argue that the Examiner erroneously rejects independent
claim 14 as anticipated by Rohe. Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3--4.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner "takes the position that the
dielectric layer mentioned (but not shown) in Rohe corresponds to the
claimed ['plate-type substrate having a first side and a second side opposite
the first side']. Appellants disagree with this position. Appellants submit
that one skilled in the art of printed circuit boards would [not] have
understood" Rohe's dielectric layer to disclose the claimed substrate. Id.
at 8. Based on our review of the record, Appellants persuade us that the
rejection is in error. Specifically, the Examiner does not support adequately
the finding that a dielectric layer (see, e.g., Answer 3--4), which may be, as
Appellants argue, "microscopically thin and conforming to whatever it is
applied over," discloses a plate-type substrate (Reply Br. 4). Thus, based on
the foregoing, we do not sustain claim 14' s anticipation rejection.
Re;ection II
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in rejecting certain claims,
including independent claim 14, as obvious based on Rohe and Rebing.
Appeal Br. 8-10. Based on our review of the record, Appellants do not
persuade us of error. Therefore, we sustain the rejection for the reasons set
forth below.
3
Appeal2018-001638
Application 14/114,233
Appellants first argue that the rejection of claim 14 is in error because
"Rohe makes no mention of the sensors being on an opposite side of the
substrate from the conductors." Id. at 9. The Examiner's rejection relies on
a modification of Rohe, based on the disclosure of He bing, however, which
results in the claimed configuration in which sensors and conductors are on
opposite sides of a substrate. Non-Final Action 5-8. Thus, Appellants do
not persuade us of error with this argument.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner errs based on the following:
[D]ue to Hohe's teaching of the dielectric layer being arranged
on top of the conductors and the sensors being arranged on the
dielectric layer ( col. 4, [11.] 31-3 6), with both the conductors and
the sensors being located on the same side of the substrate, it
would not have been obvious to move either the sensors or the
conductors to an opposite side of the substrate. To do this would
make it impossible to provide the conductor/dielectric
layer/sensor configuration of Rohe because the sensors and the
conductors would be on opposite sides of the substrate.
Id. at 9. This argument is not persuasive, however, because all the argument
does is explain that a modification of Rohe based on Hebing would result in
a configuration different from that disclosed in Rohe. We are unpersuaded
this is indicative of error with respect to the limitations of independent
claim 14.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner errs because "claim 14
includes the feature of the magnetic field sensor being a Hall sensor and, in
contrast, Hebing teaches away from using a Hall sensor." Appeal Br. 9
( citation omitted). Even assuming arguendo that He bing teaches away from
using a Hall sensor, the Examiner proposes to modify Rohe, which does use
a Hall sensor, to include Hebing's substrate. See Answer 6; see Non-Final
Action 5-8. Appellants' argument, which amounts to an argument that it
4
Appeal2018-001638
Application 14/114,233
would not have been obvious to modify Hebing's device to use Hall sensors,
does not persuade us that it would have been non-obvious to modify Rohe' s
device to use He bing's substrate. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us with
this argument.
Appellants do not argue separately against the rejection of
independent claim 29, or claims 17, 21, 24, 25, and 30-33 that depend from
independent claims 14 and 29. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
each of these claims.
Reiections III and IV
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent
claim 26, and claims 18, 20, 23, 27, 28, and 34--37 that depend from
independent claims 14, 26, and 29, because neither Gero la nor Tak remedy
deficiencies in the Examiner's rejections discussed above with respect to
claims 14 and 29. Appeal Br. 10-11. Inasmuch as we do not find there are
any deficiencies in the Examiner's rejections of claims 14 and 29, we sustain
the rejections of claims 18, 20, 23, 26-28, and 34--37.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 14.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 14, 17,
18, 20, 21, and 23-37.
5
Appeal2018-001638
Application 14/114,233
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6