Ex Parte ManosDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 11, 201612895909 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/895,909 10/01/2010 72823 7590 Quinn Law Group, PLLC 39555 Orchard Hill Place Suite 520 Novi, MI 48375 05/13/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William T. Manos 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. P010941-PTUS-RRM/GM2048 8572 EXAMINER KRAMER, DEVON C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2016 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): mjb@quinnlawgroup.com amb@quinnlaw group .com US Docketing@quinnlawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM T. MANOS Appeal2014-003587 Application 12/895,909 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE William T. Manos (Appellant) seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter "relates to a system and method for controlling a flow of air." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added: Appeal2014-003587 Application 12/895,909 1. A method for controlling a flow of air, the method comprising: establishing a level of vacuum in a booster device by generating the flow of air from the booster device using a pump having a negative pressure chamber and a positive pressure chamber; determining whether the level of vacuum in the booster device has reached a predetermined value; and terminating the flow of air from the booster device via a directional control valve, such that a pressure differential across the pump is reduced when the level of vacuum in the booster device has reached the predetermined value; wherein said terminating the flow of air includes: closing a flow path between the pump and the booster device; and changing the direction of the flow of air by opening a flow path between the negative pressure chamber and the positive pressure chamber of the pump. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 1. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lutteke (US 5,961,189, issued Oct. 5, 1999). 2. Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lutteke and Nomura (US 4,738,112, issued Apr. 19, 1988). 3. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lutteke, Nomura, and Hoyt (US 6,270,322 Bl, issued Aug. 7, 2001). 2 Appeal2014-003587 Application 12/895,909 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 -The rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) A. Independent Claim 1 (and Claim 7) Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "wherein said terminating the flow of air includes: closing a flow path between the pump and the booster device; and changing the direction of the flow of air by opening a flow path between the negative pressure chamber and the positive pressure chamber of the pump." Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that certain passages in Lutteke "clearly discuss" the "changing" limitation (shown with emphasis above). Final Act. 2-3 (citing Lutteke, col. 2, 11. 36-46, col. 6, 11. 42--49). The Examiner also stated, "the pump [in Lutteke] will deliver only on the suction or the pressure side only and the other side can supply air to or aspirates from the atmosphere" and that "[ t ]he pump will be idling when connected to atmosphere as discussed and thus the pressure differential across the pump is reduced[]." Id. at 3. We agree with Appellant that the record here does not support the Examiner's finding that Lutteke satisfies the entirety of the "changing" limitation. See Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, we agree that the relied-upon passage in column 6 (which relates to Figure 1) does not disclose "opening a flow path between the negative pressure chamber and the positive pressure chamber of the pump," as recited in that limitation. See Appeal Br. 9; see also id. (arguing that "valve 19 [in Figure 1] is incapable of connecting negative and positive pressure chambers of the pump"). Instead, that passage describes a "second switch position" in which "the suction side of the vacuum pump 1 is connected to the atmosphere." Lutteke, col. 6, 11. 45- 3 Appeal2014-003587 Application 12/895,909 47 (emphasis added). Although the Examiner states that "[t]he atmosphere can be considered as being at positive pressure relative to the vacuum chamber" (Ans. 10), the limitation at issue does not recite such language, but rather, recites the "positive pressure chamber of the pump." See Reply Br. 3 (arguing that "simply opening the pump to the atmosphere is not coextensive with opening a flow path between the negative pressure chamber and the positive pressure chamber of the pump"). 1 The Examiner has not shown that the recited claim language can reasonably be construed to include the atmosphere. We tum now to the relied-upon passage at column 2, lines 36-46 of Lutteke, in the "Summary of the Invention" section. As an initial matter, this passage does not appear to describe the embodiment shown in Figure 1 (described in the relied-upon passage from column 6), but rather, describes "a vacuum/excess pressure pump connected to the two chambers of the brake power booster." Lutteke, col. 2, 11. 28-29 (emphasis added). Such a configuration is shown, for example, in Figure 3. Compare id., col. 2, 11. 28--46, with id., col. 7, 1. 41 - col. 8, 1. 21. Regardless, with the passage from column 2, the Examiner still relies on the atmosphere as the recited "positive pressure chamber of the pump." See Ans. 10; Final Act. 3. As discussed above, that claim language cannot reasonably be construed to include the atmosphere. 1 Related to these issues, we agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 8) that the sentence spanning pages 6 and 7 of Appellant's Amendment, dated December 10, 2012, does not amount to an admission. See Final Act. 7 ("Please note that as [Appellant] admitted on page 6 of the argument section .... "). Instead, that sentence restates a finding of the Examiner. 4 Appeal2014-003587 Application 12/895,909 As to the Examiner's statement that "[t]he negative and positive pressure chambers are always in continuous fluid communication for the pump to work as intended" (Ans. 11 ), we agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 3--4) that such "continuous fluid communication" does not satisfy the requirement for "opening a flow path between the negative pressure chamber and the positive pressure chamber of the pump," as recited in the limitation at issue. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor the rejection of claim 7, which depends from claim 1. B. Independent Claim 8 (and Claim 13) Independent claim 8 recites "wherein the directional valve terminates the flow of air by closing a flow path between the pump and the booster device, and changes the direction of the flow of air by opening a flow path between the negative pressure chamber and the positive pressure chamber of the pump." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). For claim 8 (and claim 13, which depends from claim 8), the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Lutteke discussed above with regard to claim 1. Compare Final Act. 2-3, with id. at 3--4. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 13. Rejections 2 and 3 - The rejections of claims 14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Independent claim 14 recites "wherein the directional valve terminates the flow of air by closing a flow path between the pump and the booster device, and changes the direction of the flow of air by opening a flow path between the negative pressure chamber and the positive pressure chamber of the pump." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). For claim 14 (and claims 19 and 5 Appeal2014-003587 Application 12/895,909 20, which depend from claim 14 ), the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Lutteke discussed above with regard to claim 1 (see supra Rejection 1 ). Compare Final Act. 5---6, with id. at 2-3. And the Examiner's reliance on Nomura (Rejections 2 and 3) and Hoyt (Rejection 3) does not remedy the deficiencies in the teachings of Lutteke, discussed above (see supra Rejection 1 ). Thus, for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14, 19, and 20. DECISION We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation