Ex Parte EAST

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12469227 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/469,227 0512012009
20411 7590 03/01/2016
The BOC Group, Inc,
575 MOUNTAIN A VENUE
MURRAY HILL, NJ 07974-2082
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philip Charles EAST
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.
P08B400-US 1503
EXAMINER
DITMER, KATHRYN ELIZABETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3778
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP CHARLES EAST
Appeal2013-008828
Application 12/469,227 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 4--17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The Specification describes an oxygen administration apparatus
including an oxygen source, an oxygen administration device, a length of
1 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest for the above identified
application are the inventors, and the assignee of the invention, Linde AG."
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2013-008828
Application 12/469,227
tubing connecting the source to the device, and connectors on both ends of
the tubing including firebreaks. See Spec. i-f 9.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 4--1 7 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. Oxygen administration apparatus comprising:
a source of oxygen;
an oxygen administration device;
a length of flexible tubing for conducting oxygen from the
source of oxygen to the administration device, with
a first connection of a first end of the length of tubing to
the oxygen source, the first connection being made through a first
firebreak that has first and second connecting ends of different
configuration from one another, and
a second connection of a second end of the length of tubing
to the oxygen administration device, the second connection being
made through a second firebreak that has first and second
connecting ends of different configuration from one another;
wherein the first firebreak has a different configuration
from the second firebreak,
further wherein both the first firebreak and the second
firebreak carry indicia that show the direction in which they are
to be connected, and
further wherein both firebreaks take the form of a safety
valve comprising a shuttle, a sealing member carried by the
shuttle, a spring for biasing the shuttle in a valve closing
direction, and a fusible stop preventing closure of the valve,
whereby fusing of the stop allows the spring to close the valve.
App. Br. 16.
2
Appeal2013-008828
Application 12/469,227
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 4--17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over East2 in view of Dryden, 3 Radford, 4 and Schulze. 5
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that East discloses an
oxygen administration apparatus including a source of oxygen 2, an oxygen
administration device 6, a length of flexible tubing 12 and a firebreak 10.
Final Action 3 (citing East, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner acknowledges that East
does not include indicia showing the direction for connection of the
firebreak; that East does not disclose connecting ends with different
configurations for the firebreak; and that East does not disclose the use of
two firebreaks. Id. at 4--6. The Examiner concludes that the use of indicia
would have been obvious in view of Schulze; that the use of different end
configurations would have been obvious in view of Radford; and that the use
of two firebreaks would have been obvious in view of Dryden. Id.
With respect to the use of two firebreaks, the Examiner finds that
Dryden teaches that oxygen tubing can be ignited from a number of sources
including those distanced from a patient and that Dryden teaches using a
firebreak at a position proximate the patient interface or a firebreak
positioned away from the patient interface. Id. at 5. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to include multiple firebreaks in
order to halt a fire closer to the point of combustion, either from sources of
2 East, GB 2,417 ,425 A, pub. Mar. 1, 2006.
3 Dryden et al., US 5,927,312, iss. July 27, 1999.
4 Radfor et al., WO 2008/075035 Al, pub. June 26, 2008.
5 Schulze, US 6,279,597 Bl, iss. Aug. 28, 2001.
3
Appeal2013-008828
Application 12/469,227
combustion close to the patient interface or sources combustion closer to the
source of oxygen. Id. at 5---6. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Alferes6
provides evidence "that the motivation for the inclusion of multiple fusible
safety cutoff valves with respective configurations were known in the art of
flammable gas delivery at the time of invention." Id. at 10 (citing Alferes
Figs. 2--4).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of the prior art with respect to claim 1. For
the reasons set forth below, Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of
error in this rejection.
Appellant argues that none of the cited references teaches or suggests
using more than one firebreak and that there is "no motivation, teaching or
suggestion within any of the cited references that would lead one skilled in
the art to place two different firebreaks within the oxygen line as set forth in
the present invention." App. Br. 12-13. Further, Appellant asserts that
Dryden does not suggest that fires can start at multiple locations along the
tubing and that even if that were the case, Dryden teaches away from
including two firebreaks because Dryden's solution includes only one
firebreak. Id. However, we agree with the Examiner that Dryden does
suggest that fires may start at various locations along the tubing. Dryden
identifies various potential sources of ignition and indicates that a location
near the nasal cannula is the "most likely starting point." Dryden col. 1, 11.
30-34; col. 7, 11. 40--44. Dryden also teaches that a firebreak may be
provided at different locations with different advantages and disadvantages,
6 Alferes, US 4,088,436, iss. May 9, 1978.
4
Appeal2013-008828
Application 12/469,227
e.g., Dryden discloses that placing the firebreak close the nasal cannula has
the advantage of being placed near the most likely point of combustion and
has the "disadvantage of adding weight and bulk proximate the patient
interface." Id. We find that these disclosures would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art that it would advantageous and desirable to
include multiple firebreaks as the Examiner proposes in order to stop a fire
more quickly close to the source of its ignition, either in proximity to the
oxygen administration device or in proximity to the oxygen source. We are
not persuaded that Dryden's disclosure of one firebreak teaches away from
the use of two firebreaks. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Alferes
provides extrinsic support for the rejection by showing that including
multiple firebreaks would lead to predictable results, i.e., including
firebreaks near the source of gas and the destination of gas would prevent
propagation of flames along the gas line at different points and would
provide a safe distribution system. See Ans. 12 (citing Alferes col. 1, 11. 8-
15; col. 1, 11. 44--46; col. 2, 11. 6-9; col. 4, 11. 3-12).
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 1 without error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 4--17 fall with
claim 1.
5
Appeal2013-008828
Application 12/469,227
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and
4--17
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
6