Ex Parte Haesloop et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201411284679 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WILLIAM G. HAESLOOP and MOTOYASU OGAWA ____________ Appeal 2011-007221 Application 11/284,679 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, HYUN J. JUNG, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-007221 Application 11/284,679 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 13. A cryogenic pump comprising: a vertically oriented pressure pot having a cap secured thereto at an upper end of said pressure pot, wherein the pressure pot is supported intermediate the cap and a bottom portion of the pressure pot; a pump housing suspended entirely within said pressure pot from said cap, the pump housing including an extension distally positioned from the cap at a terminal end of the pump housing; a pump shaft carrying at least one set of vanes configured for pumping a cryogenic fluid by centripetal force; a lateral support fixed to a lower end of said pressure pot, said lateral support interacting with the extension of said pump housing to prevent said pump housing from swinging laterally within said pressure pot, the lateral support comprising a holder having a recessed portion fixedly attached to the vertically oriented pressure pot, wherein the recessed portion is adapted to receive the extension, thus providing lateral support while still enabling axial movement of the pump housing; and a cup secured to a surface external to the pump and configured to receive the holder of the lateral support and prevent lateral movement of the pressure pot. Rejections The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review: I. claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haesloop ‘120 (US 3,876,120, iss. Apr. 8, 1975), Haesloop ‘132 (US 4,435,132, iss. Mar. 6, 1984), and Lovell (US 2,853,950, iss. Sept. 30, 1958); and Appeal 2011-007221 Application 11/284,679 3 II. claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haesloop ‘120, Haesloop ‘132 , Lovell, and Li (US 6,543,741 B1, iss. Apr. 8, 2003). OPINION Rejection I The Appellants contend that “none of the cited references relied upon in the rejection teach or even suggest a pump housing including an extension distally positioned from the cap at a terminal end of the pump housing as claimed . . . .” Br. 6. The Appellants support this contention by observing that “the pump and motor unit 30 [of figure 5 in Haesloop ‘120] has a planar bottom surface” and by arguing that “[t]here is no feature of an extension at the terminal end of the pump and motor unit as claimed . . . .” Id. at 7. The Examiner finds that “the bottom end of the housing” of the pump 30 in Haesloop ‘120 is an extension, particularly the “frustoconical surface (59).” See Ans. 4 and 9 (citing Haesloop ‘120, Fig. 1). The Appellants’ observation about the bottom surface of the pump 30 does not explain why the frustoconical surface 59 of the pump 30 is not an “extension.” For the same reason, the Appellants’ other arguments that Haesloop ‘132 and Lovell do not teach the aforementioned limitation are not persuasive. Br. 8-10. The Appellants contend that “there is no disclosure or suggestion in the cited prior art of . . . ‘a cup secured to a surface external to the pump and configured to receive the holder of the lateral support and prevent lateral movement of the pressure pot.’” Id. at 11. The Appellants support this contention by observing that, “Lovell’s pump does not include any casing.” Id. The Examiner finds that “socket 17 can be considered as the pot Appeal 2011-007221 Application 11/284,679 4 structure since it houses and supports the pump housing.” Ans. 5 (citing Lovell, Fig. 1); see id. at 9-10. The Appellants’ argument does not address why the Examiner’s finding is in error. Appellants’ observation about the lack of a casing for the pump in Lovell does not explain why the socket 17 of the pump cannot be considered a pot. The Appellants state: as acknowledged by the Office, there is no disclosure of a lateral support fixed to a lower end of said pressure pot, said lateral support interacting with the extension of said pump housing to prevent said pump housing from swinging laterally within said pressure pot, the lateral support comprising a holder having a recessed portion fixedly attached to the vertically oriented pressure pot, wherein the recessed portion is adapted to receive the extension, thus providing lateral support while still enabling axial movement of the pump housing. Br. 7-8; see also id. at 8-9 and 11. However, the Appellants have not particularly pointed out where such an acknowledgement was made by the Office. Additionally, the Examiner finds Haesloop ‘120 discloses the lateral support required by claim 13. See Ans. 4 and 9 (citing Haesloop ‘120, Fig. 1). The Appellants do not explain why this finding is in error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haesloop ‘120, Haesloop ‘132, and Lovell. Rejection II The Appellants contend that, “Li fails to compensate for the deficiencies of the other cited references.” Br. 12. The Appellants’ contention is unpersuasive because, as discussed above, the Examiner’s Appeal 2011-007221 Application 11/284,679 5 rejection based on the combination of Haesloop ‘120, Haesloop ‘132, and Lovell does not suffer from the Appellants’ asserted deficiencies. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haesloop ‘120, Haesloop ‘132, Lovell, and Li. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation