2020006416 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021)

BASSINE, Stuart H.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 30, 2021

2020006416 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/370,707 07/03/2014 Stuart H. Bassine 70041.US 5322 31671 7590 06/30/2021 STEVEN C. SCHNEDLER Luedeka Neely Group, P.C. P.O. Box 1871 Knoxville, TN 37901 EXAMINER QUANDT, MICHAEL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@luedeka.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com lng.patent@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STUART H. BASSINE Appeal 2020-006416 Application 14/370,707 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 4, 6–8, 12, 21, 23, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Stuart H. Bassine. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006416 Application 14/370,707 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to compressor for pressurized fluid output. Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 6. A compressor for moving a gas from an inlet to an outlet and providing a pressure differential between the inlet and the outlet, the compressor comprising: a pair of piston chambers; at least a first piston rod connecting a first pair of pistons at opposite ends of said at least a first piston rod, said pistons reciprocating within said piston chambers, said at least a first piston rod supported solely by said pistons and moving back and forth on the same axis; a single bearing extending from and supported by said at least a first piston rod; a rotating shaft; a grooved end plate defining a groove which is off center with reference to said rotating shaft and not symmetrical with reference to said rotating shaft; and said rotating shaft connected so as to rotate either said piston chambers and accordingly said pistons and said at least a first piston rod or said grooved end plate, said at least a first piston rod being perpendicular to said rotating shaft, said grooved end plate being perpendicular to said rotating shaft; said single bearing received in said groove such that, when rotational motion of said shaft rotates either said at least a first piston rod or said grooved end plate around said shaft, each position of said single bearing within said groove determines a corresponding position of said at least a first piston rod relative to said rotating shaft. Appeal 2020-006416 Application 14/370,707 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lewis GB 19,203 Nov. 1, 1913 Lewis US 1,336,846 Apr. 13, 1920 Lawhead US 1,503,540 Nov. 20, 1924 Casey US 3,680,444 Aug. 1, 1972 REJECTIONS Claims 3, 4, 6–8, 12, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lawhead. Final Act. 5. Claims 3, 6, 12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Casey. Final Act. 6. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lewis (US). Final Act. 9. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lewis (GB). Final Act. 13. OPINION Written Description The Examiner rejects the claims because of the alleged presence of a negative limitation in that claim 6 recites “a first piston rod supported solely by said pistons.” According to the Examiner “the original disclosure contradicts this negative limitation” due to the presence of bearing 65. Although we agree that the piston rod at issue may contact bearing 65, this Appeal 2020-006416 Application 14/370,707 4 does not necessarily equate to support. As shown in Appellant’s drawings, piston rod 75 is suspended between the two pistons, thus they are the only support for the piston rod. As Appellant correctly states, “the bearing drives the piston rod 75; the bearing does not support the piston rod 75.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a bearing may contact and exert driving forces against an object without being considered to support said object. Here, we agree with Appellant that rod 75 is only supported by the pistons and thus the subject matter is adequately described in the Specification. Lawhead Appellant correctly notes that, in Lawhead, “set screw 22 attaches piston rod 20 to the piston frame 23” and that “piston frame 23 is not supported solely by the pistons 24 and 26.” Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner appears to rely upon the written description rejection for not addressing this argument. Unlike Appellant’s device where bearing 65 drives the piston rod, guide way 18 and bearing 20 are not analogous because, as noted above, they are actually attached to piston frame 23 via set screw 22. Accordingly, this connection provides support in a manner that is not present via Appellant’s bearing 65. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Casey The Examiner relies on Casey’s pin 49 as meeting the limitation of “a single bearing extending from and supported by said at least a first piston rod.” See, e.g., Ans. 6. As Appellant points out, however, Casey’s pin 49 extends from piston 37, not rod 41, which would be required to meet the claims. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner appears to rely upon the fact that Casey’s rod is integral with the pistons and thus anything that extends from Appeal 2020-006416 Application 14/370,707 5 the overall assembly must be considered to extend from the rod. Ans. 6. Whether or not the rod is integral with the pistons does not change the fact that one of skill in the art would understand that pin 49 extends from piston 37 and not rod 41 as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Lewis (US and GB) The Examiner asserts that the open ended transitional phrase “comprising” allows for other elements in addition to the claimed “single bearing” and because the Examiner identifies a single bearing, that Lewis meets the claim language at issue. Ans. 10. Although this may be generally true, when a claim, such as claim 6, recites that a “single” bearing extends from the piston rod, one of ordinary skill would understand that this means that no other bearing extends from the piston rod. There may be other components and even other bearings, but only one bearing can extend from the rod. The presence of the word “comprising” does not allow the Examiner to ignore the context in which the term “single” is used in the claim. Lewis discloses two rollers or projections G that extend from the piston rod and so it does not meet the claimed “single” bearing that extends from the rod. This applies equally to both Lewis references/rejections. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. Appeal 2020-006416 Application 14/370,707 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 3, 4, 6–8, 12, 21, 23, 24 112 Written Description 3, 4, 6–8, 12, 21, 23, 24 6 102(b) Lawhead 6 3, 6, 12, 21 102(b) Casey 3, 6, 12, 21 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 21, 23, 24 102(b) Lewis (US) 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 21, 23, 24 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 21, 23, 24 102(b) Lewis (GB) 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 21, 23, 24 Overall Outcome 3, 4, 6–8, 12, 21, 23, 24 REVERSED