Ex Parte Bohlen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2009

11479072 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN R. BOHLEN
____________

Appeal 2009-1654
Application 11/479,072
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 March 13, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-15. Claims 16-
24 stand withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-1654
Application 11/479,072

U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An air cleaner including an improved airflow path, comprising:
a duct extending between an air inlet of the air cleaner and an
air outlet, with the duct being configured to conduct an airflow
and comprising:

a shaped input region located downstream of one or more
air cleaning components and upstream of an
impeller;

a curved transition region downstream of the shaped
input region, with the curved transition region
transitioning the airflow from an air inlet
orientation to an air outlet orientation; and

an expansion output region downstream of the curved
transition region, with the expansion output region
allowing the airflow to expand; and

the impeller located in the curved transition region of the air
duct, wherein the airflow is smoothly conducted from the air
inlet to the air outlet by the duct.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims (Ans. 2):
Gilbert 6,361,590 Mar. 26, 2002
Lee 2005/0284168 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an air cleaner comprising
a duct which extends between an inlet and an outlet for the air. The duct
comprises a shaped input region situated downstream from a cleaning
component and upstream of an impeller. The duct also comprises a curved
2
Appeal 2009-1654
Application 11/479,072

transition region located downstream of the shaped input region, and an
expansion output region downstream of the curved transition region.
Appealed claims 1-4 and 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Gilbert. Also, claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Lee.
Appellant does not present an argument that is reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, the two groups of claims
separately rejected by the Examiner stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner’s rejections are well
founded and supported by the prior art evidence relied upon. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for
emphasis only.
We consider first the § 102 rejection over Gilbert. Appellant argues
that grill 21 of Gilbert does not meet the requirement for the claimed air
cleaning component. We agree with the Examiner, however, that grill 21 of
Gilbert qualifies as an air cleaning component since it operates to prevent
the introduction of large sized debris and particles, as well as hair, into the
system. The first listed definition of “grill” is “a grating forming a barrier or
screen”.2 Consequently, grill 21 of Gilbert would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art to function as a barrier or screen against various
debris and, therefore, the grill would be properly considered to be an air
cleaning component. We note that Appellant has not provided any particular

2 Definition of Grill, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grille (last
visited March 09, 2009).
3
Appeal 2009-1654
Application 11/479,072

definition for the claim language “air cleaning components” that would
exclude the grill of Gilbert.
Appellant also maintains that “Gilbert does not disclose a shaped
input region located upstream of (i.e., before) an impeller, as in the present
claims” (App. Br. 6, last para.). However, as pointed out by the Examiner,
the claimed “shaped input region” is of considerable breadth and fails to
define any particular shape or area of the duct. Appellant has not refuted the
Examiner’s cited definition for the term “region” as “an indefinite area”.
Hence, we agree with the Examiner that the region of Gilbert’s apparatus
located between the grill and the impeller meets the requirement for the
claimed “shaped input region”. Appellant’s argument that the claimed
“shaped input region” is part of a duct extending between the air inlet and
outlet does not distinguish the claimed air cleaner from Gilbert. Appellant
has not refuted the Examiner’s accepted definition of the term “duct” as “a
passage for conveying a substance from one point to another” (Ans. 11, first
para.), and Appellant has not provided any other definition for the claimed
term that would distinguish it from the air passage between the inlet and the
outlet of Gilbert’s system.
Turning to the Examiner’s § 102 rejection over Lee, Appellant
contends that “Lee does not teach or suggest a duct extending between an air
inlet of the air cleaner and an air outlet” (App. Br. 7, penultimate para.).
Appellant maintains that “[i]nstead of a duct, the device of Lee comprises
merely a body or shell 210, including filters positioned at the inlets before
incoming air enters the air conditioner shell and encounters the interior
components” (App. Br. 8, first para.). However, inasmuch as the definition
for the term “duct” is simply a passage for conveying a substance which has
4
Appeal 2009-1654
Application 11/479,072

no specific structure, we perceive no distinction between the passage or duct
disclosed by Lee and the duct within the scope of the appealed claims. We
find no error in the Examiner’s reasoning that “Lee ‘168 teaches an air
passage, or duct, extending between an air inlet and outlet of the air cleaner
configured to conduct airflow” (Ans. 11, second para.) and Appellant has
not identified any such error. We likewise find no error in the Examiner’s
rationale that “[t]he shaped input region is located downstream of one or
more cleaning components and upstream of an impeller [and that] [t]he
shaped input region is bounded by the components located in the space of
the housing in which air flows between the cleaning components and the
impeller” (id.). In essence, we find that the broad claim language on appeal
encompasses the system of Lee.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 35 U.S.C. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
1700 K STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
5