Ex Parte Minty

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12449482 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/449,482 08/11/2009
23117 7590 03/01/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew Minty
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.
SCS-5065-61 4245
EXAMINER
DIXON, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW MINTY
Appeal2014-000574
Application 12/449,482
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
Appeal2014-000574
Application 12/449,482
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 5-11, and 13-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a water scavenging system. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of removing water from a fuel tank using a water
scavenging line which has an inlet immersed in the water and
an outlet coupled to a water tank, the method comprising the
steps of:
filling the fuel tank with fuel whereby the fuel exerts
hydrostatic pressure on the water, the hydrostatic pressure
driving the water up the water scavenging line against the
force of gravity and into the water tank; and
feeding water from the water tank through a water output
line and into an engine.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cruise
Rix
Scragg
us 3,079,941
us 4,809,934
us 4, 799 ,504
2
Mar. 5, 1963
Mar. 7, 1989
Jan.24, 1989
Appeal2014-000574
Application 12/449,482
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19-21, and 24--27 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cruise and Rix. Final Act. 2.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 13-15, 18, 22, 23 28, and 29 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Cruise, Rix and Scragg. Final
Act. 4.
OPINION
Regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 24, the Examiner determined
that Cruise met the claimed limitations except for feeding the hydrostatic
pressure driven water from the water tank into an engine fuel line. Final
Act. 2. The Examiner equated a waste container to the claimed water tank.
Ans. 3 (citing Cruise, col. 2, 11. 55---61 ). The Examiner then relied upon Rix
to teach feeding water into an engine fuel line. Final Act. 2 (citing Rix, col.
1, 11. 60---68), and indicated it would have been obvious to make the
modification because "Rix teaches that such a predictable arrangement will
result in a method and system wherein each scavenge pipe inlet is
independent and scavenging from separate points does not depend on the
relative heads of water at each point of water entrapment." Final Act. 3
(citing Rix, col. 3, 11. 14--18).
As Appellant notes, Cruise teaches disposing of the water in the waste
container on the ground, while Rix teaches disposing of water through
dispersal in the fuel in the air. Rep. Br. 3. While grounded, the water exits
wing 10 of Cruise via external drain pipe 38 (Cruise, Fig. 2), and is fed into
the waste-container (Cruise, col. 2, 11. 55---61). In the Examiner's
modification, the water is then fed into the engine fuel line, as taught by Rix.
Ans. 3. Cruise teaches removing the water to avoid the "lift-reducing
3
Appeal2014-000574
Application 12/449,482
weight-penalty" associated with carrying the water in the fuel tank. Cruise,
col. 1, 11. 35--40. Reintroducing the water from the waste-container into the
wing, as is suggested by the modification, appears to counter this objective.
It is unclear why Cruise would flow water, which has already been removed,
back into the wing to introduce it into the engine. Cruise has presumably
already solved the problem of carrying around excess water by removing it
from the wing while on the ground. The Examiner's relied-upon motivation
from Rix teaches one of skill in the art the "advantage of the venture
arrangement." Rix, col. 3, 11. 14--18. However, Rix does not provide, nor
does the Examiner suggest, a reason why a person of skill in the art would
have modified the system of Cruise to reintroduce the water into the wing
from the external waste container and then into the engine, or relocate the
waste container. The Examiner has therefore not met the burden of
supporting the obviousness conclusion and the rejections of claims 1, 7, and
24 are reversed. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-23, and 25-29 depend from
claims 1, 7, and 24 and the rejections of those claims are also reversed.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-29 are
reversed.
REVERSED
4