Ex Parte Kimball

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2017

11804459 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
11/804,459 05/18/2007 David Searl Kimball 1156.056 9260
24955 7590 02/08/2017
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
Jeanne Gahagan
750 B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
EXAMINER
WILSON, LARRY ROSS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
John@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID SEARL KIMBALL
Appeal 2014-008533
Application 11/804,4591
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6—15, and 17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to systems and
methods for effecting non-standard fluid line connections.” (Spec. 1.)
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Zoll Circulation Inc.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2014-008533
Application 11/804,459
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are the rejected independent claims. Claim 6,
which depends from claim 1 is illustrative. Claims 1 and 6 recite (emphasis
added):
1. A medical fluid connector system comprising:
a unitary male connector body defining:
an inner hollow male cone; and
an outer annular sleeve surrounding the male cone
and radially spaced therefrom, the sleeve being internally
threaded, the male cone extending axially beyond the
sleeve, wherein
the body includes structure that prevents engaging a
standard female Luer fitting with the body, the structure
including an inner diameter of the sleeve that is greater
than an inner diameter of a sleeve of a standard male Luer
fitting.
6. The system of Claim 1, comprising a unitary female
connector body defining:
a female cone; and
at least two non-contiguous radially elongated triangular
threads external to the female cone and configured for engaging
the threads of the sleeve.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6—15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Carrez (US 2007/0076401 Al, pub. Apr. 5, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “[t]he limitation of the inner diameter of the
sleeve being greater than an inner diameter of a sleeve of a standard male
Luer fitting has been rejected using the table in paragraph 33.” (Appeal
Br. 3.) But, Appellant further argues, “[pjaragraph 23 does not mention the
2
Appeal 2014-008533
Application 11/804,459
collar of the male connector; instead, it merely states that some unspecified
diameters in its connectors are greater than standard,” and thus, that Carrez
does not teach this limitation. {Id. at 4.)
The Examiner disagrees because
[t]he rejection is based on Table lines 4—6 [Carrez 1 33] which
shows that the Carrez’s male Luer connector (RMI) has a larger
diameter collar at the base of the threads (8.4 mm) and at the crest
of the threads (7.4 mm) compared to a standard male Luer
connector (RMN) with diameters of 8 mm and 7 mm,
respectively. This shows that Carrez reads on the limitation that
“an inner diameter of the sleeve that is greater than an inner
diameter of a sleeve of a standard male Luer fitting”.
(Answer 6, citing Carrez 133.)
In view of the above finding regarding the disclosure in paragraph 33
of Carrez, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s finding that Carrez
discloses this limitation is in error.
Next, the Examiner finds that
Carrez describes a “double thread screw” [see Carrez | 40],
which indicates that Carrez’s invention uses two threads on both
the male and female connectors. Fig. 7 shows the threads are
triangular in shape and that there are two of them with one being
in the front of Fig. 7 and one just starting at the top of the female
cone.
(Answer 6.) The Examiner also finds that “the threads must be diametrically
opposed because if the threads were not diametrically opposed they would
cross each other. (Answer 7; see also Carrez Figs. 7, 8.)
Appellant argues that
[t]he examiner has drawn in an arrow to the top left-hand edge
of figure 7 from Carrez with the annotation “first triangular
thread”. . . . The structure presumably being pointed to is not a
thread, it is not the beginning of a thread, and nowhere does
3
Appeal 2014-008533
Application 11/804,459
Carrez intimate that this structure is a thread or that it is
triangular. It appears to be nothing more than the very end of the
female connector which is cylindrical and accordingly which
Carrez has drawn as wrapping around toward the rear (unseen)
side of the connector. Figure 8, which is a cross-section of
figure 7, is in accord, simply showing the rise of the top of the
structure otherwise labeled in the examiner’s drawing as “second
triangular thread”.
(Appeal Br. 4—5.)
It is not clear from Carrez that Figure 7 shows triangular threads. The
Examiner does not point to anything in the written description of Carrez to
indicate that the threads are triangular and Appellant persuasively argues
that the structure marked by the Examiner as “first triangular thread” is not a
triangular thread and may simply be the end of the connector. (See id.)
Even if it is the start of a thread, Carrez does not indicate that the thread
itself is triangular. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claim 6.
Independent claim 7 contains similar language. Therefore, for similar
reasons, we are also persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7
and dependent claims 8—12 that depend from claim 7.
Appellant states “that the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4, 13—15, and 17
are not appealed.”2 (See Appeal Br. 2.) However, “[i]f an appellant wishes
to remove claims from consideration on appeal, the appellant must submit an
amendment to cancel the claims from the application.” (MPEP § 1215.03.)
2 In view of this statement, we treat Appellant’s argument regarding the final
limitation of claim 1 as part of Appellant’s argument regarding the
patentability of claim 6 and not an argument for the patentability of claim 1.
4
Appeal 2014-008533
Application 11/804,459
Claims 1, 2, 4, 13—15, and 17 have not been cancelled. The rejection of
these claims is summarily affirmed. (See id.)
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 13—15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is summarily 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5