Ex Parte DEWEERDTDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201814139866 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/139,866 12/23/2013 118582 7590 Stanley B. Green STEIN IPLLC 1400 EYE STREET, NW SUITE 300 Washington, DC 20005 09/04/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Peter Julien Joseph DEWEERDT 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. 0603.1002 4771 EXAMINER KOSANOVIC, HELENA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2018 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@steinip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER JULIEN JOSEPH DEWEERDT Appeal 2017-011212 Application 14/139,866 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LISA M. GUIJT, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Peter Julien Joseph Deweerdt (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision (dated Sept. 23, 2016 hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-10, 12, and 13 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wiemann2 (EP 1342959 Al, pub. Sept. 10, 2003), Rohrer (US 2005/0197057 Al, pub. Sept. 8, 2005), and Berben (US 2010/0291856 Al, pub. Nov. 18, 2010). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Claim 11 has been canceled. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The Examiner refers to this reference by the patent agent's surname, Schrooten, and Appellant refers to this reference by the last three digits of the publication number, '959. To conform to our usual practice, we refer to EP 1342959 Al by the inventor's surname, Wiemann. Appeal 2017-011212 Application 14/139,866 INVENTION Appellant's invention "relates to a device for generating an air wall in order to separate two spaces." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. Device (1) for generating an air wall across a passage opening between a first space and a second space, wherein the first space and the second space have a mutually different temperature and/or humidity, which passage opening (100) has a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge and a top edge, the device ( 1) comprising: - a first blowing device (10) with a first primary blower slit (11 ), arranged at the first lateral edge of the passage opening (100) in such a way that a first substantially planar air stream is blown over substantially the entire height and at least a first part of the width of the passage opening (100); and - a second blowing device (20) with a second primary blower slit (21 ), arranged at the second lateral edge of the passage opening (100) in such a way that a second substantially planar air stream is blown over substantially the entire height and at least a second part of the width of the passage opening (100); wherein the device (1) is further provided with regulating means (13; 23) for regulating the respective blowing speeds of the first blowing device and the second blowing device; and wherein the first blowing device (10) and the second blowing device (20) are provided with secondary blower slits (12; 22) which are parallel to the respective primary blower slits (11; 21 ), which secondary blower slits (12; 22) are connected to secondary means for drying and/or heating air to be blown. Br. 15 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal 2017-011212 Application 14/139,866 ANALYSIS In response to the Examiner determining that the subject matter of claims 1-10, 12 and 13 would have been obvious in view of Wiemann, Rohrer, and Berben (Final Act. 3---6), Appellant disputes, inter alia, the Examiner's finding that Rohrer discloses the "regulating means" for controlling the blowing speed independent claims 1 and 6 recite. Appeal Br. 9-12. The Examiner does not allege either Wiemann or Berben discloses this challenged limitation. See Final Act. 3-6. For the following reasons, Appellant's challenge is persuasive. Appellant asserts correctly that the Specification links the function of regulating blowing speed with the following structure: a plate and a bolt or threaded rod that allows the plate to be moved closer to or further away from a blower slit. Appeal Br. 10 ( citing ,r,r 11, 26, 43--44, 46). Specifically, paragraph 44 states, the regulating means comprise a plate which can be moved to a greater or smaller distance from the funnel-shaped inlet of the blower slit by means of a bolt or threaded rod, as a result of which (for a specific pressure of the supplied air) respectively a greater or smaller air flow rate through the primary blower slit is set. The Examiner finds Rohrer discloses regulating the blowing speeds with structures 4 7 and 46, shown in Figures 6A and 6B, and, alternatively, structure 82, shown in Figure 17. Final Act. 4; Ans. 7-8. Regarding structure 82, the Examiner adds further, It appears that elements 82 perform the function specified in the claims, which is to provide the respective blowing speed of the air exiting the duct. In paragraphs 0043 and 0044 of. . . Rohrer it is explained that location of plates 82 (fig. 18) in the duct can create laminar, fast moving air at the duct outlet. Said plates 82 are not excluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and are equivalent for means plus 3 Appeal 2017-011212 Application 14/139,866 function. Accordingly, the references suggest that the plates may be located and adjusted in the duct (see fig. 17, plates are adjusted along the length of the duct) in order to control the flow of the air through the duct. Controlling the airflow through the duct, velocity is controlled too. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize that the regulating means (plates 82) provide respective blowing speed, as claimed. Ans. 7-8. And regarding structures 46 and 47, the Examiner states, "[p]lates that are placed in the duct of Roh[r]er are capable to control the airflow weather [sic] they are placed in the return duct or supply duct, because by moving plates (in this case plates 46, 4 7) the airflow is controlled and therefore the speed, despite weather said air is return or supply air." Id. at 8. Rohrer discloses that structures 46 and 4 7 are overlapping plates mounted to rear wall 38 of collector chamber 36 by fasteners, which extend through horizontal slots in the structures to allow the plates to slide relative to the apertures ( e.g., 42a-c) and thereby increase or decrease the size of the apertures. Rohrer ,r 37. Structures 46 and 47 taught by Rohrer can not be moved closer to, or further away from, the funnel-shaped inlet of the blower slit by the bolt or threaded rod. Instead, their design only allows the structures 46 and 47 to slide laterally, which would maintain the same relative distance to the inlet of the blower slit. Rohrer discloses that structures 82 are turning vanes that are staggered from top to bottom "so as to tum the downward flowing stream 22 to be a horizontal flowing stream" and "can help even out the flow from top to bottom of the duct 14'." Id. ,r 43. Rohrer does not suggest that the structures 82 are adjustable and, more to the point, that these structures include a bolt or threaded rod that allows the distance separating them from the funnel-shaped inlet of the blower slit to be increased or decreased. 4 Appeal 2017-011212 Application 14/139,866 Although we appreciate the Examiner's point that the turning vanes, which change the direction of the airflow, may have some effect on the speed of the contacting air. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that these vanes move toward or away from the inlet of the blower slit, after being positioned within duct 14', to regulate blowing speed. In view of the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner's finding that Rohrer discloses the claimed "regulating means." Therefore, because the Examiner does not rely on either Wiemann or Berben to cure this deficiency, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 6, or claims 2-5, 7-10, 12, and 13 depending therefrom. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10, 12 and 13 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation