Ex Parte 5942699 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2010

90006877 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2010)

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.
90/006,877 11/26/2003 5942699 VJV-9101-RE 2468
7590 08/16/2010
Dr. Mark M. Friedman
c/o Bill Polkinghorn Discovery Dispatch
9003 Florin Way
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
EXAMINER
KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte R.A.Y. BUECHLER HOLDINGS (1995) LTD.
Appellant
____________

Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Technology Center 3900
Patent No. 5,942,699
____________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

2
R.A.Y. Buechler Holdings (1995) Ltd. appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 306 from a final rejection of claims 1-9, 14-18,
21-24, 26, 27 and 29-36. Claims 10-13, 20, 25 and 28 have been confirmed
and claim 19 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134(b) and 306.
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reexamination Proceedings
A request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,942,699
(the ‘699 patent) was filed on November 26, 2003, by Vincent J. Vasta, Jr.
of the Law Offices of Vincent J. Vasta, Jr., Reexamination Control No.
90/006,877. A Reexamination Certificate, erroneously issued on October 3,
2006 was vacated.
The ‘699 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Sampling
Contaminants,” issued August 24, 1999, to Fredy Ornath and Sam S.
Buechler, based on Application No. 08/873,394, filed June 12, 1997.
The ‘699 patent is said to be assigned to R.A.Y. Buechler Holdings
(1995) Ltd., said to be the real party in interest.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for sampling cargo items for
contaminants such as chemical residues. (Abstract.) The cargo is placed in
an airtight chamber and agitated physically to release particulates and
vapors, which are passed through a collection system for analysis.
(Abstract.) Physical agitation includes vibrating or pressurizing and
depressurizing the chamber. (Abstract.)
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

3
The Claims
Claims 1, 14, 16 and 33 are exemplary:
1. A method for sampling surfaces and interiors of a plurality of
items for contaminant particulates and contaminant vapors, comprising the
steps of:
(a) sealing the items inside a chamber containing air;
(b) vibrating the items directly, thereby releasing the particulates and
the vapors from the surfaces and the interiors of the items into said air; and
(c) inducing a flow of said air, together with the released particulates
and vapors, towards a collection system, by introducing bursts of said air
into said chamber.
14. A method for sampling surfaces and interiors of a plurality of
items for contaminant particulates and contaminant vapors, comprising the
steps of:
(a) sealing the items inside a chamber containing air;
(b) agitating the items by introducing heated bursts of said air into
said chamber, thereby releasing the particulates and the vapors from the
surfaces and the interiors of the items into said air; and
(c) inducing a flow of said air, together with the released particulates
and vapors, towards a collection system.
16. The method of claim 14, wherein said air is heated to a
temperature of up to about 250° C. before being introduced to said chamber
in said bursts.
33. The method of claim 29, wherein said chamber is sufficiently
airtight for a pressure of said air to be cycled between about 1.5 atmospheres
and about 0.5 atmospheres.
The Rejections
Claims 14, 17, 22-24 and 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fine (U.S. Patent 5,092,218).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Reid (U.S. Patent 4,718,268) and Arney (U.S. Patent
4,896,547).
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

4
Claims 4 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Reid, Arney and Fine.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Reid, Arney and Oshitari (U.S. Patent 4,877,433).
Claims 15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Fine and Arney.
Claims 16, 21 and 33-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Fine.
ISSUES
§ 102 Rejection
With respect to independent claims 14 and 17, Appellant argues that
Fine does not teach “sealing the items inside a chamber containing air.”
(Br. 11-13.) Appellants present similar arguments regarding independent
claims 22 and 23, which recite similar limitations. (Br. 11-13.)
§ 103 Rejections
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues that the
combination of Reid and Arney does not teach or suggest “inducing a flow
of said air, together with the released particulates and vapors, towards a
collection system, by introducing bursts of said air into said chamber” and
argues that Arney “teaches explicitly against” the combination of the applied
references. (Br. 14-15.) Appellant presents similar arguments regarding
independent claim 26, which recites similar limitations. (Br. 14-15.)
With respect to dependent claims 16, 21 and 33-36, Appellant argues
that Fine does not teach or suggest the features of these claims. (Br. 11-12.)

Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

5
Appellant’s arguments present the following issues:
1. Has the Examiner erred in finding that Fine teaches “sealing the
items inside a chamber containing air”?
2. Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Reid and
Arney teaches or suggests “inducing a flow of said air, together with the
released particulates and vapors, towards a collection system, by introducing
bursts of said air into said chamber”?
3. Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining Reid and Arney?
4. Has the Examiner erred in finding that Fine teaches or suggests
“wherein said air is heated to a temperature of up to about 250° C. before
being introduced to said chamber in said bursts”?
5. Has the Examiner erred in finding that Fine teaches or suggests
“wherein said chamber is sufficiently airtight for a pressure of said air to be
cycled between about 1.5 atmospheres and about 0.5 atmospheres”?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Fine
1. Fine relates to a “method and apparatus for detecting explosives by
trapping, concentrating, and then analyzing airborne explosives
vapors.” (Col. 2, ll. 33-35.) Such applications include “monitoring
vehicles, buildings, luggage, and airplanes, for detecting buried land
mines, or in a booth or walk-through portal for screening people.”
(Col. 2, ll. 42-44.)
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

6
2. Fine describes a hand-held sampler as a portable gun 120 (col. 9,
ll. 26-27; figs. 10, 11) including a blower 130, lamps 132 (col. 9,
ll. 31-32; figs. 10, 11) and a central bore 138 (col. 9, ll. 35-36). The
central bore 138 leads to a collector assembly 140 (col. 9, ll. 36-37)
which includes a collector 46 (col. 9, ll. 38-40; figs. 2, 3). The central
bore 138 also communicates with the blower 130 to draw an air
sample through the collector 46. (Col. 9, ll. 52-54.)
3. The collector 46 is transferred to a desorption chamber 160 after an air
sample is drawn into the portable gun 120 and explosive vapors are
trapped in the collector 46. (Col. 10, ll. 43-46; fig. 12.) The
collector 46 “may be mounted within an air-tight
collection/desorbtion [sic] chamber which is connected to cold spot
concentrators and in turn to other portions of the explosives detection
system.” (Col. 9, ll. 4-8.)
4. In operation of the portable gun 120, small particles of explosives can
be dislodged and collected from a surface by heating. (Col. 10, ll. 22-
27.) “Action of the lamps 132, together with the blower 130, desorbs
and strips explosives vapors from the surface without decomposing
the vapors, and the explosives vapors are drawn into the gun 120 and
trapped within the collector 46.” (Col. 10, ll. 11-16.) “Heating of
explosives on a surface increases their vapor pressure significantly
(e.g. up to a factor of ten for each 10° C. increase) and blowing onto,
or locally vibrating the surface (e.g., ultrasonically), can help dislodge
small particles of explosives which may be collected, then later
desorbed as vapors” (Col. 10, ll. 22-27.) The portable gun 120 (col. 9,
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

7
ll. 26-27; figs. 10, 11) can be used in “a booth for screening people for
possession of explosives or specific drugs” (col. 9, ll. 8-9) or
“sampling in remote areas which might otherwise be inaccessible to
the explosives detector system and allows sampling of vapors by
lifting or stripping from objects (e.g., surfaces) as well as sampling of
vapors which are airborne due to the vapor pressure of explosives”
(col. 9, ll. 16-19).
Reid
5. Reid “relates to a method of detection for detecting contraband such
as drugs, firearms and explosives in containers” (col. 1, ll. 9-11)
including freight cargo containers (Abstract). A vibrating device 40 is
placed against a cargo container 10 (col. 4, ll. 66-68; fig. 4) containing
doors 16 (col. 2, l. 67 to col. 3, l. 1; fig. 1). A hole 50 is bored in the
container 10 with a sampling line 48 inserted into the hole 50.
(Col. 5, ll. 45-46; figs. 7, 8.)
6. The vibrating device 40 agitates the container 10 to ensure the
collection of a sufficient quantity of particulates (col. 4, ll. 49-55)
originating from the cargo (col. 4, ll. 17-26). Such particulates can
also absorb vapor emitted by contraband materials. (Col. 4, ll. 21-23.)
Instead of mechanical vibration, “a blast of high-pressure air may be
injected through the sampling line 48 . . . in order to agitate dust
within the container.” (Col. 5, ll. 36-39.)
7. The sampling line 48 is placed at a distance farthest away from the
doors 16 to ensure that air flows from the doors 16 to the sampling
line 48. (Col. 5, ll. 45-52; fig. 7.) The air drawn from the sampling
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

8
line 48 passes through the sample collector 62 by the operation of an
air pump 68. (Col. 6, ll. 7-10; fig. 9.) The sample collector 62 is
removed from line 48 and connected to an analyzer 74. (Col. 7, ll. 15-
19; fig. 11.)
Arney
8. Arney relates to “a walk-in inspection apparatus for producing air
samples containing vapors of selected compounds such as explosives
or drugs carried by a person.” (Col. 1, ll. 12-15; fig. 1.) The
inspection apparatus 20 includes a walk-in booth 24 (col. 3, ll. 1-2;
figs. 1, 2) that is “substantially airtight” with the exception of an open
front end (col. 3, ll. 4-8). The walk-in booth 24 includes side walls 28
and 30 and an end wall 40 (col. 3, ll. 2-4) with an array of air
nozzles 90 extending through the end wall 40 (col. 4, ll. 35-37;
figs. 2, 4).
9. Multiple funnels 62 are located behind the end wall 40 for the
withdrawal of air from around a person standing in the walk-in
booth 24. (Col. 3, ll. 54-60; fig. 3.) The funnels 62 are connected to a
collection manifold 70 by collection ducts 66. (Col. 3, ll. 60-63;
fig. 3.) A suction blower 74 draws a large volume of air from within
the walk-in booth 24 through the collection ducts 66 and collection
manifold 70. (Col. 3, ll. 64-67.)
10. “The puffs of air from the nozzles 90 shake the clothing of a person
being inspected in the booth 24, thus releasing vapors of explosives
and/or other substances, and also help expel air which may contain
vapors from beneath the person’s clothing. The air puffs also scrub
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

9
vapors from exposed skin and enhance the effectiveness of air drawn
over a person by breaking up or reducing the thickness of the stagnant
boundary layer of air directly adjacent the skin and clothing of the
person.” (Col. 4, ll. 57-65.)
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection
With respect to the first issue, we are convinced by Appellant’s
argument (Br. 11-13) that Fine does not teach “sealing the items inside a
chamber containing air.”
The Examiner found that Fine teaches all the features of claims 14
and 17. (Ans. 4, 12-13.) In particular, the Examiner found that “Fine . . .
discloses using the sample gun within an airtight booth, inherently
containing air when people are being screened.” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner
further articulated that “[t]he booth is clearly important in providing the
vapor sample and it is only logical, based on . . . common sense, that the best
way to avoid contamination of the sample is to have a sealed booth.”
(Ans. 13.) We do not agree.
Fine teaches a hand-held sampler for detecting explosives, constructed
as a portable gun 120 with a collector 46 (FF 2), in which the collector 46 is
transferred to an airtight desorption chamber 160 after explosive vapors are
trapped in the collector 46 (FF 3). Even though Fine teaches that the
portable gun 120 can be used in a booth of screening people, Fine provides
no disclosure of sealing people inside a chamber containing air.
Although the Examiner articulates that “based on . . . common sense
. . . the best way to avoid contamination of the sample is to have a sealed
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

10
booth” (emphasis added) (Ans. 13), claims 14 and 17 were not rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Fine. In addition, Arney
teaches an open-ended walk-in booth 24 for producing air samples (e.g.,
explosive vapors) from a person (FF 8) and provides evidence that the booth
of Fine is not inherently sealed.
Therefore, the Examiner has erred in finding that Fine teaches
“sealing the items inside a chamber containing air,” as recited in claims 14
and 17.
We conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 14 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 29 and 30 depend from independent
claims 14 and 17, and we likewise conclude that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), for the reasons discussed
with respect to independent claims 14 and 17.
Independent claims 22 and 23 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claims 14 and 17. We further
conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting these claims, as well as
claims 24, 31 and 32, which depend from claims 22 and 23, for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 14 and 17.
§ 103 Rejection
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9 and 26
With respect to the second and third issues, we are not convinced by
Appellant’s arguments (Br. 14-15) that the combination of Reid and Arney
does not teach or suggest “inducing a flow of said air, together with the
released particulates and vapors, towards a collection system, by introducing
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

11
bursts of said air into said chamber.” Nor are we convinced by Appellant's
arguments that Reid and Arney have been improperly combined.
The Examiner found that Reid teaches or suggests all the features of
claim 1 (Ans. 5-6; FF 5-7) except “inducing a flow of said air, together with
the released particulates and vapors, towards a collection system, by
introducing bursts of said air into said chamber” (Ans. 6). The Examiner
cited Arney for the disclosure of a walk-in booth 24 including nozzles 90
that deliver puffs or jets of air. (Ans. 6; FF 8.) The Examiner concluded
that it would have been obvious “to deliver the blast of air in a series of
puffs as this has been found to enhance effectiveness in releasing vapors by
shacking [sic] the surface and breaking up the stagnant boundary layer
adjacent the surface.” (Ans. 6-7.) We agree with the Examiner.
Reid relates to a method of detecting contraband (e.g., drugs, firearms
or explosives) in freight cargo containers 10. (FF 5.) Reid teaches that a
sampling line 48 is inserted into the container 10 for drawing particulates
originating from the cargo through a sample collector 62 for identification
by an analyzer 74. (FF 7.) Arney relates to a walk-in booth 24 for detecting
vapors of select compounds (e.g., explosives or drugs) carried by a person.
(FF 8.) The booth 24 includes nozzles 90 that deliver jets of air for breaking
up or reducing a stagnant boundary layer of air directly adjacent to the skin
and clothing of a person subject to inspection, thus releasing vapors from the
person’s clothing. (FF 10.) Such vapors are drawn towards a collection
manifold by a suction blower 74. (FF 9.)
Thus, modifying Reid to include Arney’s nozzles 90 for delivering
jets of air to release vapors would have been obvious because a person of
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

12
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such nozzles 90 delivering jets
of air would improve Reid’s inspection method by breaking up or reducing a
stagnant boundary layer of air directly adjacent to the cargo surfaces. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellant has not
presented any convincing arguments or evidence that the Examiner erred in
combining Reid and Arney.
Appellant argues that neither Reid nor Arney teaches or suggests “use
of bursts of air, not to agitate the cargo or items being inspected, but to
induce a flow of the air bearing the vapors and/or particulates to the
collection system.” (Br. 14.) Appellant also argues that “Arney, while
teaching the use of puffs of air to dislodge vapors from the clothes of a
person being inspected, teaches against using anything but a smooth flow of
air to induce flow of the dislodged vapors into a collection system.”
(Br. 15.) However, Arney teaches the use of nozzles 90 for delivering jets of
air to a person’s clothing to release vapors (FF 10), which are drawn towards
the collection manifold 70 by the suction blower 74 (FF 9). In other words,
the nozzles 90 and the suction blower 74 function cooperatively to draw
vapors toward the collection manifold 70 (i.e., Arney teaches “inducing a
flow of said air . . . by introducing bursts of said air into said chamber”).
(See FF 9-10.) Although Appellant attempts to distinguish claim 1 over
Reid and Arney by emphasizing that the “use of bursts of air, [does] not . . .
agitate the cargo or items being inspected, but . . . induce[s] a flow of the
air” (Br. 14), this feature is not claimed. Likewise, although Appellant
attempts to distinguish claim 1 over Arney by emphasizing “using anything
but a smooth flow of air to induce flow” (Br. 15), this feature is not claimed.
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

13
Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in finding that the combination
of Reid and Arney teaches or suggests “inducing a flow of said air, together
with the released particulates and vapors, towards a collection system, by
introducing bursts of said air into said chamber,” as recited in independent
claim 1.
We conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 depend from independent
claim 1, and we likewise conclude that the Examiner has not erred in
rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons discussed
with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 26 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. We further conclude that the Examiner
has not erred in rejecting this claim for the reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
Claims 4 and 27
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 4 and 27 separately (Br. 15-16), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant summarily alleges that
“[i]t is demonstrated above that independent claims 1 and 26 are allowable
in their present form” and thus, “[i]t follows that claims 4 and 27, that
depend therefrom, also are allowable.” (Br. 16.) Because Appellant has not
presented any separate arguments for dependent claims 4 and 27 based on
the teachings of Reid, Arney and Fine, we will sustain the rejection of
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

14
claims 4 and 27 for the reasons discussed with respect to independent
claims 1 and 26, from which claims 4 and 27 depend.
Claims 7 and 8
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 7 and 8 separately (Br. 16), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant summarily alleges that “[i]t is
demonstrated above that independent claim 1 is allowable in its present
form” and thus, “[i]t follows that claims 7 and 8, that depend therefrom, also
are allowable.” (Br. 16.) Because Appellant has not presented any separate
arguments for dependent claims 7 and 8 based on the teachings of Reid,
Arney and Oshitari, we will sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 for the
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1, from which claims 7
and 8 depend.
Claims 15 and 18
Claims 15 and 18 depend from independent claims 14 and 17
respectively, and the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 15 and 18 for
the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 14 and 17. Arney, which
was relied upon by the Examiner for its teaching or suggestion of air burst
frequency (Ans. 10-11), does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Fine.
Claims 16 and 21
With respect to the fourth issue, we are convinced by Appellant’s
arguments (Br. 16-17) that Fine does not teach or suggest “wherein said air
is heated to a temperature of up to about 250° C. before being introduced to
said chamber in said bursts,” as recited in dependent claim 16.
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

15
The Examiner acknowledged that Fine does not teach the limitation
“wherein said air is heated to a temperature of up to about 250° C. before
being introduced to said chamber in said bursts.” (Ans. 11-12.) The
Examiner found that Fine “teach[es] that for every 10 degree C of
temperature increase the amount of vapors given off by an explosive
contraband substance will increase by up to a factor of ten.” (Ans. 12.) The
Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . for the heated
air to be at a temperature of up to about 250 degrees C” by optimizing a
result-effective variable. (Ans. 12.) We do not agree.
Fine teaches a hand-held sampler as a portable gun 120 including
lamps 132 for the heating of explosive sample to increase its vapor pressure
and blowing on a surface to facilitate dislodging small explosive particles
from a surface. (FF 4.) However, Fine provides no teaching or suggestion
of blowing air on the surface in “bursts,” as recited in dependent claim 16.
Therefore, the Examiner has erred in finding that Fine teaches or
suggests “wherein said air is heated to a temperature of up to about 250° C.
before being introduced to said chamber in said bursts,” as recited in
dependent claim 16.
We conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claim 21 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to dependent claim 16. We further conclude that the Examiner has
erred in rejecting claim 21 for the reasons discussed with respect to
claim 16.
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

16
Claims 33-36
With respect to the fifth issue, we are convinced by Appellant’s
arguments (Br. 12) that Fine does not teach or suggest “wherein said
chamber is sufficiently airtight for a pressure of said air to be cycled
between about 1.5 atmospheres and about 0.5 atmospheres,” as recited in
dependent claims 33-36.
The Examiner acknowledged that Fine does not teach the limitation
“wherein said chamber is sufficiently airtight for a pressure of said air to be
cycled between about 1.5 atmospheres and about 0.5 atmospheres.”
(Ans. 11-12.) The Examiner concluded that “providing sufficient sealing on
the device of Fine et al. would have been obvious in order to allow for
accurate testing without outside contamination” (Ans. 12.) We do not
agree.
Fine teaches that the portable gun 120 permits sampling of explosive
vapors by lifting or stripping such vapors from objects or by detecting
airborne vapors. (FF 4.) Fine also teaches that the portable gun 120 can be
used to sample from a closed environment, such as a booth. (FF 4.)
However, Fine provides no teaching or suggestion of cycling the pressure in
the booth “between about 1.5 atmospheres and about 0.5 atmospheres,” as
recited in dependent claims 33-36.
Therefore, the Examiner has erred in finding that Fine teaches or
suggests “wherein said chamber is sufficiently airtight for a pressure of said
air to be cycled between about 1.5 atmospheres and about 0.5 atmospheres,”
as recited in dependent claims 33-36.
Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

17
We conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent
claims 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and analysis above, we conclude that:
(1) the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 14, 17, 22-24 and
29-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
(2) the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-9, 26 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and
(3) the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 15, 16, 18, 21 and
33-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 14, 17, 22-24 and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 15, 16, 18, 21 and 33-36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2010-000982
Reexamination Control 90/006,877
Patent No. 5,942,699

18

bim

FOR PATENT OWNER:

DR. MARK M. FRIEDMAN
C/O BILL POLKINGHORN DISCOVERY DISPATCH
9003 FLORIN WAY
UPPER MARLBORO, MD 20772

FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT J. VASTA, JR.
P.O. BOX 494
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840-0494