Appeal 2007-2202
Application 10/608,169
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (U.S. 2007). We consider the use of
Koizumi’s aluminum temperature sensors in Huber’s system to be nothing more
then the combination of familiar elements for the known purpose (i.e. an aluminum
temperature sensor to sense temperature) and as such consider the combination to
be obvious. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claims 9 and 12 are ultimately dependent upon claim 7. As discussed
above, we do not find that Huber teaches the logic as claimed in claim 7. Thus, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of :
-claims 1 through 3, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Huber;
-claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Ueda;
-claims 1, 3, 6 through 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Eggleton; and
-claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huber and
Koizumi.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of:
-claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Huber;
-claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ueda;
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013