Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12758492 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121758,492 04/12/2010
28395 7590 09/28/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
LaRon Michelle Brown
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.
81201942 5068
EXAMINER
PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARON MICHELLE BROWN, ANN MARIE STRACCIA, and
GREGORYLATOWSKI
Appeal2015-000547 1
Application 12/758,4922
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES A. WORTH, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Mar. 21, 2014 ), Supplemental Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 21, 2014) and Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 8, 2014), and the Examiner's Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 22, 2013) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed
Aug. 12, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC (Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2015-000547
Application 12/758,492
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to a burner system and a flame torch
(Spec. 1, 11. 6-12).
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A burner system comprising:
a burner assembly including:
a distribution outlet having a plurality of
openings; and
an electrode spaced apart from the
distribution outlet; and
a supply unit configured to provide a
gas/air mixture to the burner assembly via a hose
wherein the gas/air mixture has substantially
laminar flow through the plurality of openings; and
wherein the electrode provides an electrical arc to
ignite the gas/air mixture for a predetermined period of
time.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Re} ections on Appeal3
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Placek (US 3,941,116, iss.
Mar. 2, 1976) and Burke (US 4,325,689, iss. Apr. 20,
1982).
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 7, 17, and 21 (Ans.
16).
2
Appeal2015-000547
Application 12/758,492
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Hansen (US
5,798,601, iss. Aug. 25, 1998).
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Story (US
6,460,536 B2, iss. Oct. 8, 2002).
4. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Geiger
(DE 102005059095 Al, pub. June 14, 2007).
5. Claims 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Nonaka (JP
2003121545 A, iss. Apr. 23, 2003).
6. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Ochiai (JP
1110064 A, iss. June 24, 1997).
7. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Placek and Bonnema (US
5,857,262, iss. Jan. 12, 1999).
8. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Placek, Bonnema, and Hansen.
9. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Placek, Bonnema, and Peterson
(US 5,035,607, iss. July 30, 1991).
10. Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Placek, Bonnema, and Soanes
(US 2008/0090193 Al, pub. Apr. 17, 2008).
3
Appeal2015-000547
Application 12/758,492
11. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Soanes in view of Bonnema.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 8-10
Appellants argue that the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fails to
disclose "laminar flow," as recited in independent claim 1, i.e., "wherein the
gas/air mixture has substantially laminar flow through the plurality of
openings." Appellants state that the word "laminar" is not present in Placek
(Appeal Br. 4). The Examiner finds that although Placek does not use the
term "laminar flow," Placek describes the gas flow in the same terms as the
Specification. The Examiner observes that the Specification only describes
"substantially laminar flow" when it discloses that "the manifold cavity 86
and distribution outlet 88 may distribute the gas/air mixture at a substantially
even pressure and/or flow rate through the distribution outlet 88 which may
help provide laminar flow of the gas/air mixture" (Final Act. 3 (quoting
Spec. 8)). The Examiner finds that Lambert (U.S. 3,040,805, iss. June 26,
1982) discloses the same type of flow described in the Specification, i.e.,
substantially uniform pressure (see Lambert, col. 3, lines 23-33). The
Examiner determines that this disclosure of Lambert is incorporated by
reference in Placek where it discloses:
The type of tool to which the invention relates is disclosed in
US. Pat. Nos. 3,040,805, 3,129,749, 3,198,240 and 3,814,513.
Such a device generally bums a fuel such as propane from a
pressurized source mixed with air in a combustion chamber
which is defined by an inner mantle or gas diffuser and an outer
grid across the face of the tool.
(Placek, col. 1, 11. 9-14).
4
Appeal2015-000547
Application 12/758,492
First, as a matter of claim construction, we agree with the Examiner's
interpretation of "substantially laminar flow." We note that the claim does
not simply recite "laminar flow," but modifies the recitation of "laminar
flow" with the term "substantially." Whether or not "laminar" has a fixed
meaning as a term of art, we agree with the Examiner that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would look to the Specification for an understanding
of when flow is "substantially laminar." We further agree with the
Examiner that the Specification indicates that flow of the air/ gas mixture
will be considered to be "substantially laminar" when there is either
substantially even pressure or a substantially even flow rate through the
distribution outlet. See Spec. 8, 11. 10-14.
As to Placek, we agree with the Examiner that Placek specifically
incorporates the description of the burner tool of Lambert. Because the
burner tool of Lambert, as incorporated into Placek, possesses and exhibits
flow of the gas/air mixture in the same manner as the Specification, i.e., at a
substantially even pressure, we determine that Placek meets the limitation
"substantially laminar flow," within the meaning of independent claim 1,
i.e., "wherein the gas/air mixture has substantially laminar flow through the
plurality of openings."
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of
independent claim 1.
Appellants do not argue the patentability of claims 2---6 and 8-10
separately from independent claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejection under§ 103 of claims 2---6 and 8-10, for similar reasons as for
independent claim 1, from which they depend.
5
Appeal2015-000547
Application 12/758,492
Independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-14, 16, 18, and 19
Appellants' arguments for the patentability of independent claim 11
are similar to that for the patentability of independent claim 1, and we are
unpersuaded for similar reasons. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejection under § 103 of independent claim 11.
Appellants do not argue the patentability of claims 12-14, 16, 18, and
19 separately from independent claim 11. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of claims 12-14, 16, 18, and 19, for
similar reasons as for independent claim 11, from which they depend.
Independent claim 20
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the prior art relied
on by the Examiner fails to disclose detecting a speed of gas flow and
terminating flow upon sensation of a temperature exceeding a pre-
determined temperature, as recited in independent claim 20, i.e., "detecting a
temperature of a workpiece with a sensor provided with the burner assembly
and stopping gas flow when the temperature exceeds a predetermined
temperature value" (Appeal Br. 11 ). Appellants assert that the Examiner
fails to point with specificity to the prior art. The Examiner relies on Soanes
(i-fi-f 77 and 129) (Final Act. 18). Paragraph 77 of Soanes discloses a control
that allows manual or automatic adjusting of a heat source when the
temperature rises above a threshold, and paragraph 129 of Soanes discloses
terminating the heat source. We agree with the Examiner that it would have
therefore been obvious to modify the burner of Bonnema (e.g., Figs. 1--4)
with the teachings of Soanes to terminate the gas flow in Bonnema when a
temperature is exceeded based on the teachings of Soanes (Final Act. 18).
6
Appeal2015-000547
Application 12/758,492
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of
independent claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7