Ex Parte Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2012

11290662 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

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.
11/290,662 11/30/2005 Michael Jones 81128530 8860
32997 7590 10/31/2012
TUNG & ASSOCIATES
838 WEST LONG LAKE, SUITE 120
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
EXAMINER
CHAUDRY, ATIF H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2012 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 MICHAEL JONES
____________________

Appeal 2010-006244
Application 11/290,662
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEN B. BARRETT, and
CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006244
Application 11/290,662
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Jones (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. Specifically, the Examiner
rejected claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramsay (US 2004/0154532 A1, pub. Aug. 12, 2004) and
Cavagna (US 6,948,519 B2, iss. Sep. 27, 2005), and rejected claims 7, 13,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramsay, Cavagna,
and Smith (US 2007/0075163 A1, iss. Apr. 5, 2007). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A paint circulation system comprising:
a paint reservoir;
a circulation pump;
a paint supply header;
a paint supply conduit connecting said circulation pump
to said paint supply header;
a plurality of paint supply drop lines connected to said
paint supply header and to a paint station for supplying paint to
said paint station;
a paint return header;
a plurality of paint return drop lines connected to said
paint station and to said paint return header for returning
unused paint from said paint station to said paint return header;
a paint return conduit connected on one end thereof to
said paint return header and on an opposite end thereof to said
paint reservoir; and
a coiled tube back pressure regulator located on said
paint return conduit between said paint return header and said
paint reservoir, said coiled tube having an overall tube length
Appeal 2010-006244
Application 11/290,662
3
sufficient to achieve a desired pressure drop in the paint
circulation system while maintaining laminar flow.
OPINION
In contesting the rejection based on Ramsay and Cavagna, Appellant
groups claims 1-4 together. App. Br. 7, 11. We select claim 1 to decide the
appeal as to these claims.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s rejection proposes to position
the two-stage flow regulator of Cavagna in the paint return conduit of
Ramsay between the paint return header and the paint reservoir and then
replace one of the regulators with a coiled back pressure regulator as
disclosed in Ramsay. App. Br. 5-6. In contesting the rejection, Appellant
argues that “it would be counterintuitive to add elements only to then take
them away.” App. Br. 6. Appellant also contends that “[t]his proposed
construction fails to take into account that [Ramsay] already discloses a back
pressure regulator on the paint return conduit.” Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellant’s argument is not directed to the Examiner’s proposed
modification of Ramsay, as we understand it, and thus is not persuasive.
The Examiner’s rejection proposes to provide one coiled back pressure
regulator in Ramsay’s paint return conduit between the paint return header
18 and the paint reservoir 12c in series with the back pressure regulator 12d,
in place of the coiled back pressure regulators 24a – 24j placed in each paint
drop line 21a – 21j, to gain the benefit of “eliminating all but one coil
regulator and associated space and material costs.” Ans. 4. As explained by
the Examiner,
Ramsay discloses (Fig. 2) coiled back pressure regulators 24a
and a standard back pressure regulator 12d in series (the only
difference from the claimed invention being that coiled back
pressure regulators are located on individual return lines rather
Appeal 2010-006244
Application 11/290,662
4
than the main return line). Cavagna has been cited merely to
show prior art teaching of two pressure regulators in series
disposed on a single line. The actual pressure regulators or any
other devices taught by Cavagna are not being incorporated into
the system of Ramsay.
Ans. 7.
In contesting the rejection of claims 8-10, Appellant adds that “the
examiner has not articulated a reason for the proposed combination.” App.
Br. 7. This argument is not correct. As noted above, the Examiner’s
articulated reason for modifying Ramsay to provide only one coiled back
pressure regulator in Ramsay’s paint return conduit between the paint return
header 18 and the paint reservoir 12c in series with the back pressure
regulator 12d, in place of the coiled back pressure regulators 24a – 24j
placed in each paint drop line 20a – 21j, is “to gain the benefit of
“eliminating all but one coil regulator and associated space and material
costs.” This articulated reason has rational underpinnings, as the placement
of a single coiled back pressure regulator in the common return conduit, in
place of the individual coiled back pressure regulators in each drop line,
would clearly significantly reduce the number of coiled back pressure
regulators.
Appellant also argues, in contesting the rejection of claims 8-10, that
Ramsay “teaches away from combining the elements as proposed by the
examiner” because Ramsay “specifically discloses use of a regulator other
than one including a coiled portion of the paint return conduit.” App. Br. 7.
We do not agree with Appellant. The Examiner’s rejection does not propose
to eliminate the back pressure regulator 12d in Ramsay’s paint return
conduit. Rather, as pointed out above, the Examiner proposes replacing the
coiled back pressure regulators in each of the individual drop lines of
Appeal 2010-006244
Application 11/290,662
5
Ramsay with a single coiled back pressure regulator in the paint return
conduit between the paint return header and the paint reservoir, in series
with the back pressure regulator 12d. “A reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, . . . would
be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation
omitted). Ramsay’s provision of a back pressure regulator 12d of a type
other than a coiled type does not discourage the modification proposed by
the Examiner.
In contesting the rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, and 12, Appellant points
out that Ramsay does not disclose two regulators, including an upstream
coiled tube back pressure regulator, placed on the paint return conduit. App.
Br. 8. This assertion does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection,
which is not predicated on a finding that Ramsay discloses two regulators
placed on the paint return conduit. Appellant does not identify any error in
the Examiner’s articulated reason for replacing the coiled back pressure
regulators in each of the individual drop lines of Ramsay with a single coiled
back pressure regulator in the paint return conduit between the paint return
header and the paint reservoir, in series with the back pressure regulator 12d,
in order to reduce the number of coiled back pressure regulators to one.
In contesting the rejection of claim 14, Appellant once again alleges
that Ramsay “teaches away from combining the elements as proposed by the
examiner” because Ramsay “specifically discloses use of a regulator other
than one including a coiled portion of the paint return conduit.” App. Br. 9.
For the reasons discussed above in regard to claims 8-10, we do not agree
with Appellant.
Appeal 2010-006244
Application 11/290,662
6
In contesting the rejection of claim 15 and of claim 16, which
Appellant groups with claim 15 (App. Br. 11), Appellant argues that Ramsay
“teaches use of the standard ‘Low Shear’ regulator and does not discuss
maintaining laminar flow in the paint return conduit.” App. Br. 9. This
argument is not accurate. As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 6), Ramsay
discloses designing the system so that flow is expected “to have a Reynolds
number well within laminar flow conditions.” Para. [0151].
In contesting the rejection of claims 17, 18, and 20, Appellant merely
reiterates the unpersuasive arguments discussed above. App. Br. 10-11.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 as unpatentable over
Ramsay and Cavagna. We sustain the rejection.
In contesting the rejection of claims 7, 13, and 19 as unpatentable over
Ramsay, Cavagna, and Smith, Appellant merely relies on the unpersuasive
arguments asserted for claims 5, 11, and 18. App. Br. 11. Thus, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 7, 13, and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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

hh