Ex Parte Brand et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2013

11793910 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAN BRAND and JAN-GRIGOR SCHUBERT
____________________

Appeal 2011-002252
Application 11/793,910
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002252
Application 11/793,910

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jan Brand et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-23. App. Br. 3. Claims 1-7 have
been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 8, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal.
8. A linear compressor comprising:
a pumping chamber in which a piston moves
reciprocatingly;
a frame fixedly connected to the pumping
chamber;
an oscillating body being retained on the
frame by means of at least one spring so that the
oscillating body moves reciprocatingly;
at least one electromagnet mounted on the
frame for driving the reciprocating movement of
the oscillating body; and
a translation rod connected to the piston
with a first joint and connected to the oscillating
body by a second joint.

REJECTIONS
Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lillie (WO 03/081041 A1; pub. Oct. 2, 2003).1

1 The Examiner used Lillie (US 7,316,547 B2; issued January 8, 2008) as a
functional equivalent. Ans. 3. We refer to Lillie ‘547 herein as “Lillie.”
Appeal 2011-002252
Application 11/793,910

3
Claims 8-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over König (US 1,996,160; iss. Apr. 2, 1935) and Miser (US 6,164,188; iss.
Dec. 26, 2000).

ANALYSIS
Claims 8-10 and 13 – Anticipation - Lillie
Appellants argue claims 8-10 and 13 as a group. App. Br. 5-7. We
select claim 8 as representative of the group, with claims 9, 10, and 13
standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found Lillie discloses a compressor comprising a
pumping chamber 20 in which a piston 2 moves reciprocatingly, and a frame
(“outer structure that supports cylinder 1”) fixedly connected to the
pumping chamber 20. Ans. 4 (citing Lillie, fig. 2).
Appellants contend that Lillie discloses a “compression chamber” 20
for a piston, which is an empty space or volume within a piston cylinder, and
that a “compression chamber” is not a “pumping chamber,” as claimed.
App. Br. 5. Appellants contend that, according to the invention, “a pumping
chamber is a housing element for holding a whole piston.” Id. Appellants
also contend that “there is no reasonable interpretation by which a volume
contained within a piston cylinder could also house that same piston
cylinder.” Id. at 6.
Claim 8 recites “a pumping chamber in which a piston moves
reciprocatingly.” Appellants appear to contend that the claimed “pumping
chamber” should be construed as a structure, whereas Lillie’s compression
chamber “is merely an empty volume” inside a structure. App. Br. 6. Claim
8 does not, however, recite that the “pumping chamber” has any particular
structure, much less that the “pumping chamber” is a “housing element.”
Appeal 2011-002252
Application 11/793,910

4
Moreover, the Examiner found that Lillie’s “pumping chamber”
includes structure, and hence is not “merely an empty volume.” Lillie
discloses a piston 2 that reciprocates inside a cylinder 1, and a compression
chamber 20. See Lillie, col. 3, ll. 3-4, 25-33. The Examiner stated “Lillie in
figure 2 clearly discloses that the outer structure of the pumping chamber 20
(which simply is the external surface of cylinder 1) is fixedly connected to a
U shaped frame.” Ans. 13 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Examiner
determined that Lillie’s cylinder 1is part of the “pumping chamber.”
Appellants have not apprised us of any error in this finding, or provided any
persuasive argument as to why Lillie’s “pumping chamber” does not meet
the limitation of the claimed “pumping chamber.”
Appellants also contend that there is no fixed connection between the
compression chamber 20 and the frame structure shown in Figure 2 of Lillie.
App. Br. 6. Appellants contend that Figure 2 shows that “the piston cylinder
1 must always intervene between the compression chamber 20 and the
element asserted as the frame.” Id. As discussed supra, however, the
Examiner found that Lillie’s cylinder 1 is part of the “pumping chamber 20.”
As such, the cylinder 1 does not intervene between the structure in Lillie’s
apparatus that the Examiner determined corresponds to the “pumping
chamber” and the frame. Accordingly, Appellants’ contention that Lillie
does not disclose “a frame fixedly connected to the pumping chamber” is
also not persuasive. We sustain the rejection of claim 8, and its dependent
claims 9, 10, and 13, as anticipated by Lillie.

Appeal 2011-002252
Application 11/793,910

5
Claims 8-23 – Obviousness – König and Miser
Appellants argue claims 8-23 together as a group. App. Br. 7-9. We
select claim 8 as representative of the group, with claims 9-23 standing or
falling with claim 8.
The Examiner found that König discloses a compressor comprising a
pumping chamber in which a piston 3 moves, and a frame 5 fixedly
connected to the pumping chamber. Ans. 5. The Examiner also found that
König discloses a translation rod 4 connected to piston 3 with a first joint
and connected to an oscillating body 1 by a second joint. Id. Based on this
additional finding, we understand that the Examiner determined that König
discloses each of the limitations recited in claim 8, including “a translation
rod connected to the piston with a first joint and connected to the oscillating
body by a second joint,” that is, that König anticipates claim 8.
Appellants contend that the Examiner did not identify any specific
disclosure in König that corresponds to the claimed pumping chamber. App.
Br. 7. In response, the Examiner stated that “as shown in figure 1 [of König]
a portion of structure 5 forms the cylindrical structure in which the piston is
moving effectively forming a pumping chamber.” Ans. 14-15. We
understand that the Examiner determined that the cylindrical structure in
which piston 3 moves corresponds to the claimed “pumping chamber.”
Appellants have not apprised us of any error in this finding, or provided any
persuasive argument why König’s “pumping chamber” does not meet the
limitation of the claimed “pumping chamber.”
Appellants also contend that, in claim 8, the frame and the pumping
chamber are two separate elements. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants contend that
the Examiner did not identify “any actual pumping chamber with ‘a frame
Appeal 2011-002252
Application 11/793,910

6
fixedly connected to the pumping chamber.’” Id. at 8. These contentions
are not persuasive.
First, claim 8 does not recite that the frame and pumping chamber are
“separate elements” from each other. Second, claim 8 does not recite any
limitation as to how the frame is “fixedly connected” to the pumping
chamber. In addition, Appellants do not direct us to a specific definition of
this term in the Specification. Absent an express intent by Appellants to
impart a novel meaning to “fixedly connected,” we look to the ordinary
meaning of the claim term. An ordinary meaning of “fixed” is “securely
placed or fastened: stationary” (see MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY 474 (11th ed. 2003)), and an ordinary meaning of “connected”
is “joined or linked together” (see id. at 264). Applying these definitions of
“fixed” and “connected” to the pertinent limitation of claim 8, we find that
König’s housing 5 is “securely placed or fastened” and “joined or linked
together” (i.e., “fixedly connected”) to the structure that forms the “pumping
chamber” in which compressor 3 moves. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that König meets the “fixedly connected” limitation.
We agree with the Examiner that König renders the claimed linear
compressor unpatentable. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA
1982) (A disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the
claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness.)2 Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 8, and its dependent
claims 9-23.

2 We do not reach the Examiner’s alternative ground of rejection of claim 8
as being obvious over the combination of König and Miser.
Appeal 2011-002252
Application 11/793,910

7
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-23 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls