Ex Parte Mc Queen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 7, 201613400632 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/400,632 02/21/2012 E. KEITH Mc QUEEN 23370 7590 09/09/2016 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800 ATLANTA, GA 30309 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. Z0030/832001 6816 EXAMINER TA, THODAC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte E. KEITH McQUEEN, 1 Emmanuel Mastio, Dindo Uy, and Mark J. Bauckman Appeal2015-001769 Application 13/400,632 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL E. Keith McQueen, Emmanuel Mastio, Dindo Uy, and Mark J. Bauckman ("McQueen") timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1-7 and 15-18, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse for reasons stated by McQueen. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (Appeal Brief, filed 15 August 2014 ("Br."), 3.) 2 Office action mailed 27 May 2014 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR"). Appeal2015-001769 Application 13/400,632 A. Introduction3 OPINION The subject matter on appeal relates to flexible hoses often used to connect a suction pump with an automatic swimming-pool cleaners ("APC"). The '632 Specification teaches that the prior art has noted that when used with water-interruption APCs, in which a valve cyclically interrupts flow of water through the cleaner, the flexible hose section cyclically compresses and extends along its longitudinal axis. (Spec. 1, citing van der Meijden.4) The Specification teaches further that this hose pulsation occurs in some situations at a rate of about 4 to 7 Hz. (Id. at 2, 11. 17-19.) The Specification reveals that this pulsation, which until the present invention had been regarded solely as contributing to the wear and failure of the hose (id. at 1, 11. 30-32), can be exploited to generate electricity (id. at 2, 11. 19-20). This may be done by placing wires in the hose and surrounding the hose by magnets such that the relative motion of the wires and the magnets generates electricity (id. at 11. 20-22). Alternatively, a wire with shape memory or a piezo film may be embedded into corrugations of the hose, and the expansion and contraction of the hose will generate electricity (id. at 11. 24-26). 3 Application 13/400,632, Hoses principally for automatic swimming pool cleaners, filed 21 February 2012, claiming the benefit of a provisional application filed 22 February 2011. We refer to the '"632 Specification," which we cite as "Spec." 4 Full citation at 3 n.9, infra. 2 Appeal2015-001769 Application 13/400,632 Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads: A hose assembly comprising: a. a hose having a longitudinal axis and configured to expand and contract along the longitudinal axis under influence of a pump; and b. means for generating electricity from the longitudinal expansion and contraction of the hose. (Claims App., Br. 10; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) Remaining independent claim 6 is similar but recites a pump and an automatic swimming pool cleaner connected by such a hose assembly. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5 : A. Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Plastiflex6 and Wyatt. 7 Al. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Plastiflex, Wyatt, and Shau. 8 B. Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of van der Meiden9 and Wyatt. Bl. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of van der Meiden, Wyatt, and Shau. 5 Examiner's Answer mailed October 22, 2014 ("Ans."). 6 Plastiflex Company, Flexible hoses, GB 974,670 (1964) (referred to by the Examiner and McQueen as "GB"). 7 Roy Wyatt et al., Piezoelectric elements and devices incorporating same, WO 98/09339 (1998). 8 Jeng-Jye Shau and Albert Shau, Electrical power generators, U.S. Patent No. 7,148,583 Bl (2006). 9 Hendrikus Johannes van der Meijden and Michael Edward Moore, Pool-cleaner hoses and methods for making the same, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0077759 Al (2009). 3 Appeal2015-001769 Application 13/400,632 B2. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of van der Meiden, Wyatt, and Plastiflex. B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. The critical issue in this appeal is whether McQueen has shown (Br. 6, 1. 1 7, to 7, 1. 18), by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Examiner erred harmfully in finding that Wyatt describes "a tube 12 10 configured to expand and contract along a longitudinal axis of the coil 10" (FR 2, 11. 16- 17) and that means 14, 16 generate electricity from the [longitudinal] expansion and contraction of the coil (id. at 11. 19-21 ). Wyatt, Fig. 2 (left) and Fig. 6 (right), are shown below. ~.·.'.······""'1A ~ "i2' \ 16 1~.Sl>i» If ' ::: \ \ 10 fig. 6 {Fig. 2: cross section of piezoelectric tube 12 with inner [14] and outer [16] electrodes} {Fig. 6: side view of piezoelectric tube 10 spiral-wrapped around cylindrical core 18} Wyatt describes the formation of piezoelectric tube 12 by extruding a dough of piezoelectric ceramic powder, winding the extruded cylinder on a cylindrical mandrel, and sintering to form coil 10. (Wyatt 4, 11. 17-21.) Inner electrode 14 and outer electrode 16 are formed by dipping the coil into an appropriate suspension of electrically conductive particles, followed by 10 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 4 Appeal2015-001769 Application 13/400,632 curing. (Id. at 4, 1. 26, to 5, 1. 4.) A plurality of such devices are disposed end-to-end on flexible central cylindrical core 18, and the assembly is then placed in flexible hose 20, which is filled with oil to afford acoustic coupling to the surrounding water. (Id. at 7, 11. 14-22.) In Wyatt's words, "[i]t will be understood from the description in relation to Figs 1 and 2 that the poling direction of the piezoelectric material forming the tube 12 is in the radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the tube 12." (Id. at 11. 22-25; emphasis added.) The assembly is towed by a ship and acoustic signals in the surrounding water are transmitted through the hose 20 and via the oil to coils 10, the resulting deflection of which causes a voltage signal to be passed via conductors 22 back to the ship. (Id. at 7, 1. 26, to 8, 1. 4.) While the Examiner is correct in finding "that the 'resultant deflection' of the coil 10 of Wyatt when being used in the surrounding fluid would include the expansion and contraction of coil" (Ans. 3, 11. 1-3), the Examiner has not directed our attention to any credible evidence that radially poled dielectric tube 12 would respond to longitudinal expansion and contraction of the tube, as required by claims 1 and 6. The Examiner makes no findings regarding the other applied references (Plastiflex, Shau, van der Meiden) that cure this fundamental defect. We reverse the appealed rejections. 5 Appeal2015-001769 Application 13/400,632 C. Order It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-7 and 15-18 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation