Ex Parte Jackow

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

13083036 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/083,036 04/08/2011 KazJackow
56576 7590 06/22/2016
MASTROGIACOMO PLLC
345 PINE STREET
WYANDOTTE, MI 48192
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.
26169-0001 7285
EXAMINER
LAU, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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 KAZ JACKOW
Appeal2014-006494
Application 13/083,036
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kaz Jackow ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-18, and 20, which are
all the pending claims. See Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-006494
Application 13/083,036
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to "a torch capable of
automated flame ignition." Spec. i-f 4. Claims 1 and 14 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An automated torch comprising:
a head, said head including a burning chamber, said
burning chamber being open to the atmosphere and weather
elements to expose a flame to the atmosphere and weather
elements;
a pole;
a valve;
a programmable computer module, said module
configured to convert a low voltage to a high voltage, said
module further configured to actuate said valve, said module
still further configured to control said valve to vary the amount
of fuel introduced into said burning chamber to modify the
aesthetics of the flame;
a sleeve nut, said sleeve nut configured to be adjustable
to control the amount of air introduced into said burning
chamber to modify the aesthetics of the flame;
at least one fuel supply tube;
a diffuser assembly;
an igniter said igniter positioned within said burning
chamber, said igniter including an anode and a cathode;
wherein said anode and said cathode are positioned such
that said anode is proximate said cathode to create a sufficient
gap such that when the high voltage is applied to said igniter a
spark is induced across said gap;
wherein said anode and said cathode of said igniter are
configured to detect the presence of a flame within said burning
chamber; and
2
Appeal2014-006494
Application 13/083,036
wherein said igniter is configured to be electrically
connected to said programmable computer module, said
programmable computer module programed to interpret a signal
from said igniter to determine whether the high voltage should
be induced across said gap to create the spark or whether a
flame is present in said burning chamber.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Stein us 1,974,975 Sept. 25, 1934
Bernstein us 3,364,704 Jan.23, 1968
Gaines us 4,173,498 Nov. 6, 1979
Collins us 5,980,238 Nov. 9, 1999
Fenn US 6,283,145 Bl Sept. 4, 2001
Willamor US 6,653,790 B2 Nov. 25, 2003
Morris US 2005/0158682 Al July 21, 2005
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 13-15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willamor,
Bernstein, Morris, Stein, and Fenn.
II. Claims 3 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Willamor, Bernstein, Morris, Stein,
Fenn, and Collins.
III. Claims 12 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Willamor, Bernstein, Morris, Stein,
Fenn, and Gaines.
3
Appeal2014-006494
Application 13/083,036
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, an automated torch
including "a programmable computer module, said module configured to
convert a low voltage to a high voltage." Br., Claims App. Independent
claim 14 recites a similar limitation. See id. Appellant argues that "[ n ]either
Willamor nor Morris teach[ es], suggest[ s] or disclose[ s] that a
programmable computer module is capable of generating a high voltage
signal from a low voltage signal," and that "[i]t would not be obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the gas lamp or gas torch art at the time the
invention was made to modify Willamor wherein said [programmable
computer] module is configured to convert a low voltage to a high voltage."
Id. at 9, 11. According to Appellant, Willamor discloses a torch that ignites
by a low-voltage, sparkless glow coil without creating an arc. See id. at 11.
Appellant contends that Willamor' s torch does not require a high voltage
spark for operation and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been led to modify Willamor to convert a low voltage to a high voltage as
proposed by the Examiner. See id. We agree.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner found that
Willamor discloses an automated torch substantially as claimed, including a
programmable computer module, but fails to disclose, inter alia, that the
computer module converts a low voltage to a high voltage. See Final
Act. 2-3. The Examiner relied on Morris for teaching a torch igniter having
a gap between an anode and a cathode such that "high voltage (high voltage
needed to initiate the spark) is applied to said igniter [and] a spark is induced
across said gap." Id. at 3 (citing Morris, Fig. 2). The Examiner determined
that, given the teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to one
4
Appeal2014-006494
Application 13/083,036
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
modified the torch of Willamor to convert a low voltage to a high voltage in
order to "provide an integrated igniter and flame sensor for ease of assembly
and maintenance." Id. at 3--4. The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that the
proposed "modification [of Willamor] with Morris replaces the glow igniter
60 and flame sensor 58 of Willamor with a high voltage spark igniter/flame
sensor," and "[t]hus, after the modification, a low voltage signal is sent by
the computer module to the igniter/flame sensor to generate a high voltage
spark across the cathode and anode of the igniter so as to ignite the gas."
Ans. 9.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not properly
identified, nor do we discern, a disclosure in Morris of a computer module
configured to convert a low voltage to a high voltage. See Br. 11. Morris
discloses "a spark ignited pilot." Morris i-f 37. However, Morris is silent as
to converting a low voltage into a high voltage, and the Examiner offers no
evidence or technical reasoning to explain why the spark ignited pilot of
Morris necessarily converts a low voltage signal into a high voltage signal.
Thus, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence
that Morris, as relied upon in the rejection, teaches converting a low voltage
to a high voltage.
Nevertheless, even assuming that the spark igniter of Morris would
convert a low voltage into a high voltage to generate a spark, the Examiner
erred by failing to articulate adequate reasoning supported by some rational
underpinnings as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been prompted to modify the torch of Willamor to replace the low voltage
glow igniter with a spark ignited pilot as taught by Morris. See KSR Int 'l
5
Appeal2014-006494
Application 13/083,036
Co. v. T'elejlex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (stating that "rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))). Willamor discloses a "low-
voltage flame starter or glow coil 60 [that is a] sparkless flame starting
means used to create the flame ... [without] an arc." Willamor, col. 2,
11. 41--44 (boldface omitted). Therefore, Willamor is already capable of
igniting a flame using the low-voltage, sparkless glow coil and the Examiner
does not explain adequately why a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to modify Willamor to replace the glow igniter with a
spark igniter. As such, the Examiner's stated reason in support of the
proposed modification of Willamor (i.e., "so as to ignite the gas") lacks
rational underpinnings.
The Examiner did not rely on Bernstein, Stein, Fenn, Collins, or
Gaines in any way that would cure the deficiency discussed supra with
respect to the Examiner's proposed modification of Willamor. See Final
Act. 7-8.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met
the burden of establishing a proper prima facie case of obviousness. On this
basis, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 as
being unpatentable over Willamor, Bernstein, Morris, Stein, and Fenn.
Because each of claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20 depends directly or
indirectly from one of independent claims 1 and 14, we likewise do not
sustain the rejections of the dependent claims.
6
Appeal2014-006494
Application 13/083,036
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-18,
and 20.
REVERSED
7