Ex Parte Kruse

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 22, 2011

11446933 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 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.
11/446,933 06/05/2006 Volker Kruse C-81383 2012
24131 7590 11/22/2011
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2011 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 VOLKER KRUSE
____________

Appeal 2011-000662
Application 11/446,933
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000662
Application 11/446,933

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 2-11, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, 26, 31, and 33. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.1
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a heating installation and
heating installation cleaning assembly. Claim 17 is illustrative:
17. A heating installation and heating installation cleaning
assembly, comprising:

a heating installation having heat exchanging surfaces; and

an apparatus for cleaning said heat exchanging surfaces, said
apparatus having:

at least one supply line for a cleaning fluid, said at least one supply
line to be inserted into said heating installation transversely to the
direction of the force of gravity and having a substantially straight
unbent profile within said heating installation, said at least one
supply line having a supporting section extending for at least 1.5
m, said substantially straight profile being self-supporting at least
over said supporting section, said at least one supply line having a
variable shape and an end, and said at least one supply line having
an extent axis, being bendable in a first direction transverse to said
extent axis, and being resistant to bending in at least one second
direction transverse to said extent axis, said at least one second
direction corresponding substantially to the direction of the force
of gravity;

at least one fluid distribution device disposed at said end of said at
least one supply line;

a device disposed solely outside of said heating installation and not
inside of said heating installation for bending said at least one

1 An oral hearing for this appeal was held on October 13, 2011.
Appeal 2011-000662
Application 11/446,933

3
supply line only once outside of said heating installation from a
direction parallel to the direction of the force of gravity to a
direction for insertion into said heating installation transversely to
the direction of the force of gravity and for unbending said at least
one supply line from a direction for withdrawal from said heating
installation transversely to the direction of the force of gravity to
the direction parallel to the direction of the force of gravity; and

a device for determining a length of said at least one supply line
relative to a predeterminable reference point.

Appellant requests review of the following rejections (App. Br. 5-6)
from the Examiner’s final office action:
1. Claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 24, 26 and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over over Mattsson, Swedish Patent No.
506331, published Dec. 1, 1997, in view of Jens, US Patent No. 5,341,406,
issued Aug. 23, 1994, and Nansel, US Patent No. 3,284,036, issued Nov. 8,
1966.
2. Claim 7-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mattsson in view of Jens, Nansel and LaMotte US Patent No.
6,050,227, issued Apr. 18, 2000.
3. Claim 23 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mattsson in view of Jens, Nansel and Brown US Patent
No. 5,237,718, issued Aug. 24, 1993.

OPINION
After thorough review of the positions of the Examiner and Appellant,
we agree with Appellant that the subject matter of independent claim 17 is
not rendered obvious by Mattsson alone or in combination with Jens, and
Nansel.
Appeal 2011-000662
Application 11/446,933

4
The subject matter of independent claim 17 is directed to a heating
installation and heating installation cleaning assembly comprising, inter alia,
at least one supply line to be inserted into the heating installation having a
supporting section extending for at least 1.5 m and a device disposed solely
outside of the heating installation for bending the at least one supply line
only once outside of the heating installation.
The Examiner relied on Mattsson as describing a heating installation
and heating installation cleaning assembly having heat exchanging surfaces
(heat transfer tubes 64) and an apparatus for cleaning the heat exchanging
surfaces, Fig. 1. The cleaning apparatus has a supply line (hose 52) for
cleaning fluid which is inserted into the heating installation (boiler tube
packet 62) parallel to the direction of the force of gravity and having a
“substantially straight” profile within said heating installation, Fig. 1. (Ans.
4). The Examiner relies upon Jens, and Nansel for describing a position
sensor and metal linkages that permit horizontal insertion of a hose. 2 (Id. at
5-6).
The Examiner’s § 103 rejections are not sustainable for the reasons
presented by Appellant in the Briefs. Appellant correctly argues that in
Mattsson the cleaning assembly (1) is arranged completely inside the
container (60). We agree with Appellant that:
Contrary to what the Examiner alleges, Mattson explicitly
teaches placing a cleaning assembly (1) completely inside a
container (60), wherein the container (60) is a heating
installation (“heat exchanger”) and wherein the container (60)
includes outer walls (61) and a tube package (62) (see lines 7 to
14 of the translation of Mattson as well as Fig. 1 and page 5,

2 A discussion of the Jens and Nansel references are unnecessary for
disposition of the present appeal.
Appeal 2011-000662
Application 11/446,933

5
lines 9 to 24 of Mattson). Therefore, the “tube package (62)”
cannot be read on the “heating installation” limitation according
to claim 17 of the instant application, as is done by the
Examiner, due to the fact that the heating installation of
Mattson explicitly consists of the container (60), the outer walls
(61) and the tube package (62). Thus, the supply line (52) is
not inserted into the heating installation (60), neither parallel to
the direction of the force gravity nor transversely to the
direction of the force of gravity (as required by claim 17).
Furthermore, the supply line (52) cannot be completely
withdrawn from the heating installation (60) onto a reel (51)
since contrary to what the Examiner has stated, Mattson does
not disclose a storage apparatus for the supply line (52) which
is installed outside the heating installation. Mattson clearly
teaches placing the reel (51) inside of the heating installation
(60) (see lines 7 to 8 of translation of Mattson as well as Fig. 1
of Mattson). Likewise, the hose feed device (20) bends the
supply line (52) inside and clearly not “only once outside the
heating installation (60)” (see lines 3 to 8 of the translation of
Mattson as well as Fig. 1 of Mattson). Therefore, it is beside
the point if the Examiner reads the heating installation on the
tube package (62), because the cleaning assembly (1) is still
arranged completely inside the container (60) (see the
translation of Mattson as well as Fig. 1 of Mattson).
(App. Br. 10-11).
Appellant also correctly argues that Mattsson does not teach the
supply line (52) as having a substantially straight profile and being self-
supporting over at least 1.5 m as required by the subject matter of claim 17.
(Id. at 12).
“[R]ejections 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appeal 2011-000662
Application 11/446,933

6

For the reasons stated above and those presented by Appellant, the
rejections of claims 2-11, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, 26, 31, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

ORDER
The rejections of claims 2-11, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, 26, 31, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED

bar