Ex Parte 5573648 et al - Page 45



            Appeal 2007-0128                                                                                  
            Reexamination Control 90/006,208                                                                  
            Patent 5,573,648                                                                                  
                   Dempsey teaches that its sensor, like Atwood=s, detects gases that bring                   
            about a change in potential between the sensing and reference electrode.  Dempsey,                
            like Atwood, states that its sensor detects a variety of gases including carbon                   
            monoxide, NOx and alcohol vapors.  Dempsey’s specification, like Atwood’s,                        
            provides little if any guidance as to the selection of the materials needed to detect a           
            specific gas.                                                                                     

            Additionally, we note that Tomantschger teaches that one of ordinary skill in the                 
            art knew how to devise a specific gas detection system using suitable catalysts and               
            electrolytes to test for any toxic, combustible or flammable gas.  (Tomantschger,                 
            col. 2, ll. 42-46).  Based upon the references of record, including Dempsey and                   
            Tomantschger, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art knew how to select the                
            appropriate materials to detect a particular gas. 6                                               
                                                                                                             
            6 See, In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568, 31 USPQ2d 1817, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1994)                   
            ("Rather, the Board's observation that appellant did not provide the type of detail in            
            his specification that he now argues is necessary in prior art references supports the            
            Board's finding that one skilled in the art would have known how to implement the                 
            features of the references and would have concluded that the reference disclosures                
            would have been enabling."); In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407, 176 USPQ 340, 341                    
            (CCPA 1973) (appellant's specification "assumes anyone desiring to carry out the                  
            process would know of the equipment and techniques to be used, none being                         
            specifically described"); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d                      
            1560, 1569, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("The disclosure in Exhibit 5                    
            is at least of the same level of technical detail as the disclosure in the '491 patent.           
            If disclosure of a computer program is essential for an anticipating reference, then              
            the disclosure in the '491 patent would fail to satisfy the enablement requirement of             
            35 U.S.C. ' 112, First &.").                                                                      

                                                     45                                                       



Page:  Previous  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013