Ex Parte Green

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2013

11062287 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/062,287 02/22/2005 Michael Philip Green 8755.008.US0000 6704
77176 7590 05/28/2013
Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP
1875 Eye Street, NW
Eleventh Floor
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
HWU, DAVIS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2013 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 MICHAEL PHILIP GREEN
____________

Appeal 2011-006749
Application 11/062,287
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006749
Application 11/062,287

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 10-26 and 28-34. Claims 1-9 and 27 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on May
7, 2013, with Thomas P. Pavelko, Esq., appearing on behalf of Appellant.
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to an air cooler misting unit. Claim
10, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
10. An air cooler misting unit for an automotive or
industrial engine cooling system, the unit
comprising:

(a) a heat exchanger wherein an internally flowing
hot liquid is cooled by flow of air over an external
surface of the heat exchanger;

(b) a liquid holding tank for storing a liquid which
is used for spraying a mist of liquid into the air
which flows over the external surface of the heat
exchanger;

(c) a liquid delivery conduit that delivers the liquid
from the holding tank to at least one spray jet;

(d) at least one spray jet for misting the liquid into
the flow of the air;

(e) a pump for moving the liquid through the
conduit from the holding tank to the at least one
spray jet;

(f) a one way flow valve positioned in the liquid
Appeal 2011-006749
Application 11/062,287

3
delivery conduit between the holding tank and the
at least one spray jet to stop the liquid in the
holding tank from siphoning out;

(g) an on an off switch which supplies the pump
with power to move the liquid from the holding
tank to the spray jet; and,

(h) an electrical wire to supply power from the
switch to the pump and a linkable fuse for the
purpose of protecting the electrical system in case
of an overload condition.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 10 and 28-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scofield (US 3,926,000, issued Dec. 16, 1975) in view of
Hill (US 6,899,282 B1, issued May 31, 2005) and McHenney (US
4,280,748, issued Jul. 28, 1981);
(ii) claims 11-19 and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scofield in view of Hill, McHenney and Massey (US
6,325,362 B1, issued Dec. 4, 2001);
(iii) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Scofield in view of Hill, McHenney, Massey and Jenkins (US 3,878,989,
issued Apr. 22, 1975); and
(iv) claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Scofield in view of McHenney, Massey and Prasad (US 5,528,900, issued
Jun. 25, 1996).

Appeal 2011-006749
Application 11/062,287

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 10 and 28-34--Obviousness--Scofield/Hill/McHenney
The Examiner found that Scofield discloses all elements of claim 10
with the exception of a one-way flow valve in the liquid delivery conduit,
nor a linkable fuse. Ans. 4. The Examiner relied on McHenney for the
teaching of a linkable fuse, and concluded that it would have been obvious
to provide the same in the Scofield device, a position which Appellant does
not take issue with. The Examiner relied on Hill as teaching a spraying
system having a check valve provided in a liquid conduit between a tank and
a spray nozzle. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious in
view of Hill to modify the Scofield cooler mister to include a one-way valve
between the tank and the spray jet in order to prevent water in the tank from
siphoning out of the tank. Ans. 4-5.
Appellant pointed out that the check valve in Hill is employed to
prevent backflow of liquid (water potentially containing additives) from
flowing back into a water holding tank, and not to prevent siphoning from
the tank. Appeal Br. 5-6. In response, the Examiner provided a different
rationale for modifying Scofield in view of Hall to include a one-way valve
in the liquid delivery conduit, i.e., in order to “prevent fluid in the tank from
being contaminated.” Ans. 7. The Examiner then reasoned that making
such a modification for preventing contamination of the fluid in the tank will
also result in “preventing the liquid in the tank from siphoning out because
the valve will close to prevent back flow.” Id.
The first rationale for modifying the Scofield device in view of the
teachings of Hall is found only in Appellant’s own Specification. Nowhere
does Scofield discuss any problem with liquid siphoning out of its tank. Hill
Appeal 2011-006749
Application 11/062,287

5
provides its check valve for preventing backflow of liquid in a direction
opposite to that in which siphoning would occur. The Examiner has not
adequately established that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have
otherwise recognized that siphoning of the liquid from the tank in Scofield
posed a potential problem.
The second rationale proposed by the Examiner is also lacking in
rational underpinnings. The check valve in Hill operates to prevent water
into which additives are mixed from flowing back into a clean water tank,
thus, as the Examiner puts it, preventing contamination. The Scofield
system employs water only, and thus does not appear to have any concern
with contamination. The Examiner has provided no explanation as to why
persons of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that contamination
of water in the Scofield system might have been a concern.
The rejection of claims 10 and 28-34 is thus not sustained.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 11-26
Rejections (ii)-(iv) above all rely on the same erroneous conclusion as
to the alleged obviousness of claim 10 over Scofield, Hill and McHenney.
For the reasons noted above, we do not sustain the rejections under § 103(a)
of claims 11-26.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10-26 and 28-34 is
reversed.
REVERSED

mls