Appeal 2007-0128
Reexamination Control 90/006,208
Patent 5,573,648
purpose to form an article having that purpose, i.e., using a known gas sensor
proton-electron mixed conductive electrode that generates electrical current in the
presence of oxidation/reduction reactions in a known gas sensor that detects gases
via oxidation/reduction reactions is prima facie obvious. This is especially true
where the prior art identifies the known proton-electron mixed conductive
electrodes as having improved characteristics. Additionally, we have evaluated
Atwood=s evidence of commercial success but find that it fails to demonstrate that
the alleged success is due to a claimed and unique feature of the gas sensor.
Atwood=s arguments concerning claims 3-6, 8, 9, 13-16, 75, 79 and 80 are
addressed below.
viii. Dempsey taken in light of Grot and/or Uchida renders obvious
clams 3-6, 8, 9, 13-16, 75, 79 and 80
We affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of Atwood claims 3-6, 8, 9, 13-
16, 75, 79 and 80.
Claims 3-5 and 14-16
Atwood claim 3-5 depend from claim 1 and further require that the sensing
and counter electrodes comprise carbon, noble metals and conductive metal oxides.
Atwood claims 14 depends from claim 1 and requires that the electrodes comprise
10-50 wt% of a proton conductor material and 50-90 wt% of a first and second
conductor material. Atwood claim 15 depends from claim 14 and requires that the
40
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013