11581139 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 13, 2011)

Ex Parte Mohr

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 13, 2011

11581139 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 13, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 11/581,139 10/13/2006 Paul B. Mohr 18797 USA 7386 27081 7590 12/14/2011 OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. ONE MICHAEL OWENS WAY, THREE O-I PLAZA PERRYSBURG, OH 43551-2999 EXAMINER SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1741 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2011 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 PAUL B. MOHR ____________________ Appeal 2011-000240 Application 11/581,139 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellant’s invention relates to a baffle system for a blow-and-blow glassware forming machine, in which settle air is fed through a baffle to push a glass gob against the interior of a blank or parison mold (Spec. 1:1- 10). Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2011-000240 Application 11/581,139 2 1. A baffle system for blank molds of a glassware forming machine, which includes: a first shaft having an axis and being mounted for movement in the direction of said axis and for rotation around said axis, a baffle arm mounted to said first shaft, a manifold suspended from said baffle arm, a plurality of baffle holders suspended from said manifold, rocker arms interconnecting said baffle holders for equalizing forces applied by said baffle holders to blank molds of a glassware forming machine, a second shaft adjacent to said first shaft, and a link arm extending between said second shaft and said manifold, said baffle arm, said manifold and said link arm forming a linkage that moves said baffle holders between a first position overlying the blank molds and a second position spaced from the blank molds, disposition of said rocker arms between said manifold and said baffle holders permitting said manifold to be folded under said baffle arm in said second position of said baffle arm, said manifold and said baffle holders. The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)1 as anticipated by Meyer (US 5,928,400, issued Jul. 27, 1999). The Examiner correspondingly rejects the remaining claims on appeal under 35 1 Appellant identifies the rejection as being under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rather than 102(b), we consider this harmless error as Appellant presents no arguments directed to the date of the applied reference. Appeal 2011-000240 Application 11/581,139 3 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Meyer alone or further in view of Irwin (US 4,466,821, issued Aug. 21, 1984). II. DISPOSITIVE ISSUE We agree with Appellant that the issue in this appeal turns on the meaning of the term “manifold” (Reply Br. 2). Thus, the dispositive issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellant and the Examiner is: does the evidence support the Appellant’s view that the Examiner erred in finding that the term “manifold” recited in claims 1 and 12, as properly interpreted, reads on the support head 38 of the baffle system of Meyer? We answer this question in the affirmative. III. DISCUSSION During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Appellant’s Specification lacks an express definition of the term “manifold” (see generally Spec.). The Specification states that: Air is supplied to baffle holders 78, 80, 82 though an air inlet 134 on baffle arm 38 (FIGS. 2 and 3), through the hollow interior of baffle arm 38 into the hollow interior of manifold 60, through manifold 60 including the hollow interiors of fittings 62, 64, 66, and through the hollow interiors of baffle holders 78, 80, 82. (Spec. 7, ll. 5-8). Appeal 2011-000240 Application 11/581,139 4 The Examiner contends that the term “manifold” means “a junction of tubes or passages” (Ans. 7). The Examiner then finds that “Figure 3 shows a cross section of 38, and clearly shows that several air passages are connected in 38, therefore meeting the broadest definition of a manifold” (id.). Citing dictionary definitions of the term “manifold” relied upon in recent Board decision, Appellant contends that “manifold” means “a chamber having several outlets through which a liquid or gas is distributed or gathered” (Reply Br. 3).2 Appellant argues that this interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, in which manifold 60 has a hollow interior, a single inlet and several outlets defined by fittings 62,64, 66 and baffle holders 78, 80, 82. (id. at 4) (citing Spec. 7:6 and Fig. 7). Appellant also contends that Meyer’s support member 38 meets neither Appellant nor the Examiner’s claim interpretation since it contains only a single passage and not a plurality of tubes or passages (Reply Br. 4). We agree with Appellant. The term “manifold” is commonly used as a synonym for “distributor.” In other words, a manifold generally has one passage in and several passages out in order to distribute liquids or gases. Appellant’s “manifold” 60 is just such a component (see Fig. 7). Meyer’s support head 38 includes only a single passage 110, which is in fluid connection with passage 106 of link 10, and central passage 108 of pin 36 (Meyer, col. 4, ll. 64-67 and Fig. 3). While the Examiner’s proposed interpretation is not necessarily inconsistent with Appellant’s in that a manifold does, in fact, join several passages, we agree with Appellant that 2 Although Appellant’s claim interpretation is not provided until the Reply Brief, Appellant’s claim interpretation is in response to the express claim interpretation of the Examiner not provided until the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2011-000240 Application 11/581,139 5 the single passage 110 of support head 38 meets neither the Examiner’s nor Appellant’s interpretation of the term “manifold.”3 The Examiner has applied the same rationale in the rejection of each of the pending claims. VI. CONCLUSION On the record before us and for the reasons discussed above, we cannot sustain the rejections maintained by the Examiner. VII. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED ssl 3 We further agree with Appellant that Meyer teaches that “air is not required at the baffle head [and thus] no further extension of the air passageway [beyond passage 110] is shown” (Meyer, col. 5, ll. 1-2). While an air distributor, presumably the “blowhead” taught by Meyer (Meyer, col. 1, ll. 24-28 and 57-58 and col. 4, ll. 59-67), would have been an obvious substitution for support block 72 disclosed by Meyer under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we agree with Appellant that a manifold disposed in the position of support block 72 would not be a manifold disposed as required by the claims.