Ex Parte Blau et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 9, 201713792903 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/792,903 03/11/2013 Reed J. Blau 2507-7777.2(22031-US-12) 6543 60794 7590 11/14/2017 TRASKBRITT, P.C./ ORBITAL ATK, INC. P.O. BOX 2550 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110 EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2017 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): U S PTOMail @ traskbritt .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REED J. BLAU, JAMES D. ROZANSKI, RICHARD M. TRUITT, GARY K. LUND, and WILLIAM P. SAMPSON1 Appeal 2017-002219 Application 13/792,903 Technology Center 3700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s non-final rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1, 17, and 33 as unpatentable over Gupta (US 6,935,433 B2, Aug. 30, 2005) in view of Galbraith (US 5,449,041, Sept. 12, 1995) and of dependent claims 2—11, 13—16, and 18—32 as unpatentable over these references alone or in 1 Orbital ATK, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-002219 Application 13/792,903 combination with an additional prior art reference. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. Appellants claim a fire suppression system comprising a plurality of gas generators positioned within a defined space where a fire is to be suppressed wherein each gas generator contains a solid gas generant composition (independent claims 1 and 33) as well as a corresponding method of suppressing the fire in a defined space (remaining independent claim 17). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A fire suppression system comprising: a plurality of gas generators positioned within a defined space where a fire is to be suppressed, each gas generator of the plurality of gas generators having a solid gas generant composition positioned within a combustion chamber, separate from any other combustion chamber of any other gas generator of the plurality of gas generators, the combustion chamber having walls capable of withstanding a maximum working pressure, and each gas generator of the plurality of gas generators configured to generate a flow of gas into the defined space upon ignition of its respective solid gas generant composition; and at least one initiating device configured to ignite each of the respective solid gas generant compositions of each gas generator of the plurality of gas generators, and to ignite the respective solid gas generant composition of at least one gas generator of the plurality of gas generators independent of ignition of the respective solid gas generant composition of at least one other gas generator of the plurality of gas generators in a predetermined, time-ordered sequence selected to achieve and substantially maintain pressure within a predetermined range within the defined space 2 Appeal 2017-002219 Application 13/792,903 during gas generation during ignition of the at least one gas generator and the at least one other gas generator of the plurality of gas generators. In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds that “Gupta discloses the fire suppression system comprising a plurality of gas generators 12 and 22 . . . configured to generate a flow of gas into a defined space 40” (Non-Final Action 2) but that “Gupta does not disclose using solid gas generants” (id. ). Nevertheless, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to have modified the device of Gupta by replacing the gas generators with a gas generator having a solid gas producing material to be ignited since such arrangements have already been taught by Galbraith to generate gas” (id.). Appellants argue that “Gupta and Galbraith do not teach or suggest a fire suppression system that includes, among other recited elements, ‘a plurality of gas generators positioned within a defined space where a fire is to be suppressed . . as recited in independent claims 1 and 33” (App. Br. 10). Appellants explain correctly that “Gupta teaches multiple defined spaces 40, 42 into which helium from both of the bottles 12 and 22 may be directed” (id. at 11) and argue that “[t]hus, the bottles 12 and 22 cannot be positioned within a defined space where a fire is to be suppressed, as there are multiple defined spaces wherein a fire is to be suppressed by the bottles 12 and 22” (id. at 11—12). Appellants present a corresponding argument regarding remaining independent method claim 17 (id. at 22). The Examiner responds by stating that each of the compartments 40 and 42 comprises 2000 cubic feet in volume whereas “a large cargo plane 3 Appeal 2017-002219 Application 13/792,903 may have a cargo area of more than 2000 cubic feet of volume, in which, in this case, the cargo area would require a plurality of gas generators to cover the entire cargo area” (Ans. 4). The Examiner concludes “[tjherefore, in installing the system of Gupta onto such a cargo area, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the cargo area would require a plurality of gas generators” (id.). As indicated above, Appellants accurately point out that Gupta directs fire suppressing gas from both of the externally located bottles 12 and 22 into either one of defined spaces/compartments 40 or 42 where a fire is to be suppressed (App. Br. 11—12, Reply Br. 3). The Examiner’s quotations from both the non-final rejection and the response to argument section of the Answer reflect that the Examiner fails to understand this point. For example, the Examiner’s conclusion that it would if been obvious to an artisan that a larger cargo area “would require a plurality of gas generators” (Ans. 4) is inconsistent with the undisputed point that Gupta’s system already includes plural gas generating bottles 12 and 22 for each of the cargo compartments/areas 40 and 42. Further, and more importantly, in both the non-final rejection and the Answer, the Examiner does not articulate reasoning with rational underpinning to support a conclusion that it would have been obvious to move Gupta’s bottles 12 and 22 from their external location to a position within one of the defined spaces/compartments 40 and 42 as required by each of the independent claims. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by 4 Appeal 2017-002219 Application 13/792,903 mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the independent claim requirement that a plurality of gas generators are positioned within a defined space where a fire is to be suppressed. Concerning the independent claim requirement that each gas generator has a solid gas generant, Appellants additionally argue that the applied references provide no reasonable expectation that the solid gas generant of Galbraith would be capable of successfully producing fire suppressing gas at the flow rate and time period taught by Gupta (App. Br. 12—14, 22—23). The Examiner’s only response to this argument is the unembellished statement that “[bjecause the device of Galbraith is a gas generant, the expectation of success is high, and using a solid gas generant as taught by Galbraith prevents the possibility of leakages that could be incurred by liquid or gaseous gas generant materials” (Ans. 4). In the record before us, the Examiner fails to even address, much less effectively rebut, Appellants’ seemingly-meritorious argument. Therefore, the Examiner also fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (based on a reasonable expectation of success) with respect to the independent 5 Appeal 2017-002219 Application 13/792,903 claim requirement that each gas generator has a solid gas generant composition. The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation