10249011 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2011)

Ex Parte Hargett

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 15, 2011

10249011 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/249,011 03/10/2003 Wyatt Price Hargett JR. 1700.130 7526 21176 7590 06/15/2011 SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. 11610 NORTH COMMUNITY HOUSE ROAD SUITE 200 CHARLOTTE, NC 28277 EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1772 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/15/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte WYATT PRICE HARGETT JR ________________ Appeal 2010-008304 Application 10/249,011 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008304 Application 10/249,011 Â 2Â Â Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, and 27-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We AFFIRM. Appellant claims a vessel assembly 10 comprising a cylindrical reaction vessel 11 having an open end 20 with a lip 21 that is beveled inwardly, a plug 22 having a frustum portion 22a for engaging the beveled lip, and a flexible clamp 12 for exerting a defined axial force against the plug (claim 1; Figs. 1-4, 6). Further details regarding this claimed subject matter are set forth in representative claim 1 which reads as follows: 1. A controlled release and self-resealing vessel assembly for high pressure microwave assisted chemistry, said vessel assembly comprising: a cylindrical reaction vessel formed of a material that is substantially transparent to microwave radiation, said vessel having annular outer walls, one closed end for retaining reactants in the lower portions of said vessel and one open end that defines a mouth for said vessel; said mouth of said cylinder having a lip that is beveled inwardly from said open end towards said closed end; a microwave- transparent solid floating plug for closing said mouth of said reaction vessel, said plug having a frustum portion for engaging said beveled lip when said plug is placed in said mouth of said vessel; and a flexible clamp for exerting a defined axial force against said plug for sealing said plug in said open end of said cylinder with said frustum engaging said inwardly-beveled lip. Appeal 2010-008304 Application 10/249,011 Â 3Â Â The following references are relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of obviousness: Buchoff US 2,929,687 Mar. 22, 1960 Meyer et al. US 4,055,396 Oct. 25, 1977 Dufresne et al. US 4,830,217 May 16, 1989 Yamazaki et al. US 5,061,263 Oct. 29, 1991 Foster et al. US 5,224,515 July 6, 1993 Ebara US 5,246,434 Sept. 21, 1993 Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, and 7 as unpatentable over Ebara in view of Buchoff and rejects claims 27-31 as unpatentable over these references and further in view of Yamazaki, Foster, Dufresne, and Meyer. As an initial matter, we observe that Appellant has not presented separate arguments concerning the dependent claims under rejection. Further, the only reasonably specific argument presented against the rejection of independent claim 27 relates to whether Ebara and Buchoff would have suggested the features common to both independent claims 1 and 27 such as a beveled lip (see App. Br. 6-7). Accordingly, our disposition of this appeal will focus on representative claim 1. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner acknowledges that the open end of Ebara's tubular member 10 does not have a beveled lip for engaging a frustum portion of stopper 20 (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Buchoff discloses such a beveled lip and concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the vessel assembly of Ebara with this feature "so that the stopper would be easier to remove from the mouth of [the] vessel" (id. at para. bridging 4-5). Appeal 2010-008304 Application 10/249,011 Â 4Â Â Appellant argues that "the combination [of Ebara and Buchoff] is improper because the structures disclosed in the [Ebara] â€˜434 and [Buchoff] â€˜687 patents are functionally incompatible with one another" (App. Br. 4). Appellant explains that Ebara's stopper 20 is held in place by cap member 30 (id. at 5) and contends that "the outwardly beveled stopper 12 and associated flared top portions 17 of the [Buchoff] â€˜687 tube . . . would defeat the function of the cap 30 in the [Ebara] â€˜434 blood collection tube that holds the diaphragm [sic, stopper] 20 in place" (id. at 6). Appellant's argument is unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9). This record contains no support for Appellant's contention that providing Ebara's tubular member 10 with a beveled lip for engaging a frustum portion of stopper 20 would "defeat the function of the cap 30" (App. Br. 6). We do not perceive and Appellant does not explain how such a provision would prevent cap member 30 from holding stopper 20 in place as desired by Ebara (e.g., see col. 5, ll. 46-52). Appellant further argues that the applied references contain no teaching or suggestion of the floating plug and flexible clamp required by claim 1 (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3-4). However, it is apparent that the Examiner finds these respective features to be satisfied by Ebara's stopper 20 and cap member 30 (Ans. 4). On this record, Appellant has failed to identify any error in this finding. For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting representative claim 1 which Appellant has not successfully refuted with argument and/or evidence of nonobviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Â§ 103 rejections advanced in this appeal. Appeal 2010-008304 Application 10/249,011 Â 5Â Â The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED bar