Ex Parte Johnsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

13249311 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/249,311 09/30/2011
31554 7590 03/29/2018
CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP
445 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD
SUITE420
MELVILLE, NY 11747
Nina Johnsen
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.
(AIB57267)1716-158 1053
EXAMINER
HWU,DAVISD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docket@cdfslaw.com
tgiordano@cdfslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NINA JOHNSEN and PAUL ROHRBACH
Appeal2017-001806
Application 13/249,311
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1, 5-7, 9-12,
and 14--23, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as AIRBUS Operations GmbH. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-001806
Application 13/249,311
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A nozzle device for discharging a fire extinguishing
medium into a cargo hold of an aircraft, the nozzle device
compnsmg:
a discharge nozzle and a discharge nozzle holder, the
discharge nozzle being made of aluminum and/or an aluminum
alloy, the discharge nozzle holder being made entirely of carbon-
fiber-reinforced plastic, wherein a layer of an intumescent
material is applied directly on a surface of the discharge nozzle
facing the cargo hold and on a surface of the discharge nozzle
holder facing the cargo hold,
wherein the discharge nozzle holder is configured to be
secured directly on a wall of the cargo hold.
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, and 14--23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davis (US 6,488,098 Bl, issued
Dec. 3, 2002), Pruett (US 6,206,301 Bl, issued Mar. 27, 2001), Miller (US
2008/0292854 Al, published Nov. 27, 2008), and Tlemcani (US 7 ,028,431
B2, issued Apr. 18, 2006). Final Act. 2-3.
II. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Davis, Pruett, Miller, Tlemcani, and Kreilos (US
2010/0255202 Al, published Oct. 27, 2010). Final Act. 3.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue "the combination of the intumescent material of
T[l]emcani with the fire extinguishing port 10 of Davis, as proposed in the
office action, would render the fire extinguishing port 10 of Davis
2
Appeal2017-001806
Application 13/249,311
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of dispersing a fire extinguishing
agent within an aircraft electrical panel."2 App. Br. 4. In particular,
Appellants argue that Davis' fire extinguishing port has radial outlets for
dispersing a fire extinguishing agent, and that applying Tlemcani' s
intumescent material on the nozzle would cause the intumescent material to
occlude the outlets of Davis' nozzle when the intumescent material swelled
in the presence of heat. Id. at 5---6.
We determine that Appellants have raised sufficient question as to
how the intumescent material of Tlemcani would have been applied to
Davis' nozzle 14 without occluding the radial outlets when subjected to heat.
The Examiner finds "a designer will carefully apply the intumescent
material so that it will not block the outlets of the [Davis] device when the
material swells or puffs." Ans. 4. The Examiner also notes that claim 1 is
not specific as to the location of the intumescent material on the nozzle. Id.
Considering the shape and design of Davis' nozzle, however, it is unclear
whether any appreciable amount of intumescent material could be applied to
the nozzle without risking occlusion of the outlets when the material swells
in the presence of heat. See Davis. Fig. 3 (showing nozzle 14 and radial
outlets 16, 22, 24, 30 thereon). Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has not
provided sufficient reasoning or explanation for combining Davis and
Tlemcani in the manner proposed. 3
2 Tlemcani defines "intumescent material" as "a material that, upon exposure
to heat or flame, swells or puffs up to a relatively thick cellular foam char
which possess heat-insulative and fire-retardant properties." Tlemcani col.
1, 11. 41--45.
3 Although the Board is authorized to enter a new ground of rejection under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects
3
Appeal2017-001806
Application 13/249,311
In view of the foregoing, and because the rejections of all claims on
appeal rely on combining Davis and Tlemcani in the manner discussed
herein, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 5-7, 9-12, and 14--23
under§ 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5-7, 9-12, and 14--
23.
REVERSED
not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1213.02.
4