Ex Parte Barth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13928921 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/928,921 06/27/2013
24131 7590 09/30/2016
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
PO BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JOACHIM ROLAND BARTH
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2012Pl4685 6422
EXAMINER
DIAZ, SABRINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOACHIM ROLAND BARTH, HOLGER KRAL, and
JOSEPH SAUER
Appeal2015-001630
Application 13/928,921
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1 and 3-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-001630
Application 13/928,921
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "a housing having a plurality of
connections including a fluid connection and an electrical connection
disposed with mutually different spatial orientations." App. Br. 25
(emphasis added). Independent claim 5 recites a similar limitation. Id. at 6.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-5 over a combination Gebert et
al. (US 8,379,895 B2; Feb. 19, 2013) and Lee et al. (US 4,592,370; June 3,
1986). As is relevant here, the Examiner found Gerbert does not teach "a
fluid connection and an electrical connection with mutually different spatial
orientations" as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner
found Lee's Figures 1 and 2 depict a fluid connection (auditory signal
channel 42) and an electrical connection (spring elements 34) with different
spatial orientations. Id. In particular, the Examiner found Lee's spring
elements 34 have "a recess portion ... shown as being aligned to the vertical
axis" and "the fluid connection ... form[ s] a continuous auditory signal
channel 42 in the horizontal direction." Ans. 9.
Appellants argue, among other things, that Lee does not disclose "a
fluid connection and an electrical connection disposed with mutually
different spatial orientations." App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-6. According to
Appellants, Lee, like Gebert, discloses fluid and electrical connections with
the same orientation. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3---6.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Figures 1 and 2 of Lee do
not depict "a fluid connection and an electrical connection disposed with
mutually different spatial orientations" under any reasonable interpretation
of this limitation. See Lee Fig. 1, items 34 and 42; Fig. 2; see also In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("During
2
Appeal2015-001630
Application 13/928,921
examination, claims ... are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification." (emphasis added and
citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). In particular, one of
ordinary skill in the art, considering Lee's spring elements 34 and auditory
signal channel 42 as a whole, would not consider these items to have
"mutually different spatial orientations." Accordingly, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner erred. We therefore do not sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-5.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 3-5.
REVERSED
3