Ex Parte KruseDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 22, 201111446933 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation