Appeal 2007-0128
Reexamination Control 90/006,208
Patent 5,573,648
Atwood concludes that one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to
adapt a gas sensor to detect hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide as LaConti, Dempsey,
Grot, Uchida and Vanderborgh describe different electrode arrangements. (Appeal
Br., p. 63).
As discussed above with respect to claims 8 and 79, 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, NO2, alcohol vapors,
etc.” (Dempsey, Abstract).
LaConti confirms that one skilled in the art was well aware that hydrogen
and hydrogen sulfide could be detected using an electrochemical gas sensor. This
holds true even though LaConti describes a different placement for its sensing and
counter electrodes.
As discussed above, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art knew how to
select the appropriate gas sensor materials to detect a particular gas. We further
find that hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide are known gases that one skilled in the art
would attempt to detect. (See, e.g., LaConti, Table 1). Based upon the evidence of
record, we affirm the Examiner=s rejection of claims 9 and 10 as obvious over
Dempsey in view of Grot, Uchida and Vanderborgh and further in view of
LaConti.
E. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
56
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013