Ex parte Grossman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 21, 1999

08536304 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 21, 1999)

Application for patent filed September 26, 1995. 1
According to appellant, the application is a division of
Application 08/192,171, filed February 4, 1994.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte KURT L. GROSSMAN
________________
Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,3041
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
This case comes before us again on request by the
appellant for rehearing of our decision mailed September 17,
1998, wherein we refused to sustain the examiner’s Section 112
Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
-2-
rejection of the
thirteen claims before us and the Section 103 rejection of
claim
13, but sustained the Section 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and
7-12. It is the appellant’s primary position that there would
have been no suggestion to combine the teachings of Mikkelson
and Varney in the manner set forth in the Section 103
rejection that we sustained. While we have carefully
considered all of the appellant’s arguments, we maintain our
position that the subject matter recited in the rejected
claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of the combined teachings of Mikkelson and Varney.
This being the case, while we have reconsidered our decision
in the light of the arguments set forth by the appellant in
the request under 37 C.F.R. § 1.197(b), we shall not modify
it.
As revealed in column 1 of the Mikkelson reference:
It is known to clear conduits of ice by inserting
flexible tubing or hosing into frozen conduits and
forcing steam through the tubing to melt the ice in
Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
-3-
the conduit. See ancient U.S. Pat. No. 77, 857,
granted to Young on May 12, 1868.
Cited in Mikkelson for this same principle are three other
patents which issued in 1891, 1894, and 1920. These are
consistent with the appellant’s information disclosure
statement
(Paper No. 2), wherein he cites U.S. Patent No. 501,744
(issued in 1893 to D.H. Streeper), in which steam is passed
through a flexible hose that is unreeled from a coil and “run
into the frozen pipe” to melt the ice, with the coil being
further unreeled and pushed into the pipe until it is
completely thawed out (page 2, line 41 et seq.). We therefore
view Mikkelson as being directed to improving upon the well-
known technique of applying heat to an ice blockage in a pipe
in order to melt it. A most important teaching presented in
Mikkelson is that of introducing the source of heat through an
aperture in the pipe through which water normally flows.
Regardless of the fact that Mikkelson teaches that the
apparatus disclosed also can be used to convey a suitable
Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
-4-
dissolving material to restrictions in the pipe caused by
scale, the conclusion is inescapable that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been taught by the prior art,
including Mikkelson, to thaw ice blockages in pipes by
applying heat directly at the frozen point by inserting a hose
with heat issuing from the end of it through an aperture
opened in the pipe and pushing it through until it reaches the
blockage. The difference between this system and that recited
in the appellant’s independent claim 1 is that the claim calls
for the heat to be supplied by means of an electric micro
heater attached to the end of a support. However, melting ice
in a pipe by the use of an electric micro heater that is
pushed through the pipe to the point of blockage is taught by
Varney, which operates exactly like that of the appellant’s
invention except for its manner of insertion into the pipe.
As explained in our decision, it therefore is our opinion that
the combined teachings of these two references would have
rendered obvious the invention recited in claim 1.
Although the rejection is set forth on the basis of
Mikkelson in view of Varney, approaching the issue from the
Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
Where a rejection is predicated upon two references,2
each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed
out to the applicants, it is merely a matter of exposition
that the rejection is stated to be A in view of B instead of B
in view of A; such differing forms of expression do not
constitute different grounds of rejection. See In re Bush,
296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961).
-5-
opposite perspective results in the same conclusion. 2
Considering that Varney teaches using an electric micro heater
as the means for applying heat directly to the ice blockage,
the only difference between the method of Varney and that of
claim 1 is that Varney installs a connection in the pipe run
through which the support and the heater are inserted and
advanced,
whereas the claims require that the insertion be through an
aperture through which water flows in normal use. Mikkelson
teaches an alternative manner of introducing the heater into
the pipe, which is the same as that required by the
appellant’s claims.
We stand by our conclusion that the combined teachings of
the two references would have suggested the method recited in
Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
-6-
the claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Our
reasoning with regard to the remaining claims is set forth in
the decision, and this has not been challenged by the
appellant in the request for rehearing.
The arguments advanced by the appellant focus upon
details of the structure and operation of the Mikkelson device
which, in the appellant’s view, would have mitigated against
combining the references in the manner that has been done. We
find them not to be persuasive insofar as the basic tenet of
the rejection is concerned, which is that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce an
electric micro heater through an aperture opened in the pipe
through which water normally flows to provide heat to impinge
upon an ice blockage, in view of the combined teachings of the
two primary references.
Conceptually, the rejection is very simple. Mikkelson
provides the teaching of applying heat to an ice blockage in a
pipe by means of an element introduced through the particular
route recited in the claims. Varney provides the teaching of
applying heat to an ice blockage in a pipe by means of the
particular heating element required by the claims. Suggestion
Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
-7-
to combine these teachings in the manner proposed is found in
the self evident advantages of utilizing an electric micro
heater in place of the more cumbersome heated water system.
The appellant’s request that we alter our decision is
denied.
DENIED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
-8-
Kurt L. Grossman
8630 Twilight Tear Lane
Cincinnati, OH 45249
NEA/ki