Appeal 2007-0128
Reexamination Control 90/006,208
Patent 5,573,648
reference that
is reasonably pertinent to Atwood’s field of endeavor of detecting gases where
electrical current is generated by the oxidation/reduction of the gas to be detected.
ii. Reasons for Combining the References
Atwood argues that the Examiner has failed to establish that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dempsey
with Grot, Uchida or Vanderborgh and make Atwood=s claimed gas sensor.
(Appeal Br., pages 34-39). In particular, Atwood alleges that the motivation to
combine the references is not apparent and the Office has failed to explain the
motivation with objective evidence. (Id. at 35). Atwood also argues that Grot and
Uchida recite numerous possible applications for their membrane and electrode
structures and that this broad description does not teach or suggest an ambient
atmosphere application. (Reply Brief, p. 6).
The Examiner=s Final Office Action (Paper 12) states that Dempsey teaches
Atwood=s claimed gas sensor with the exception of the claimed electrodes having
both ionically and electrically conductive materials. (Paper 12, p. 4). The
Examiner cites Grot, Uchida and Vanderborgh as describing the claimed
electrodes. The Examiner states that the electrodes of Grot, Uchida and
Vanderborgh would provide improved electrical properties to Dempsey=s gas
sensor. (Id.). Further, the Examiner states that the substitution of one known
electrode for another requires only routine skill in the art. There is objective
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013