Ex Parte MOLZ et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201612489088 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/489,088 06/22/2009 Ronald J. MOLZ P36191 1911 7055 7590 12/16/2016 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 EXAMINER WARD, THOMAS JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2016 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONALD J. MOLZ and JAMES LEACH Appeal 2015-002385 Application 12/489,088 Technology Center 3700 Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2015-002385 Application 12/489,088 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a shroud for powder injection and associated methods of use. Claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 are independent. Claims 1 and 18, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter: 1. A powder injection apparatus, comprising: a shroud attachable to an outlet nozzle of a thermal spray apparatus, wherein the shroud comprises: a substantially smooth and continuous inner wall defining a bowl through which a plume of the thermal spray apparatus travels, and at least one port in the inner wall structured and arranged to receive a powder injection nozzle that injects powder into the plume. 18. A method, comprising: shrouding an eddy current generated by a plume exiting an outlet nozzle of a thermal spray device, and injecting powder into the plume downstream of the outlet nozzle through the eddy current. REJECTIONS1 Claims 1—4, 6, 9-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wigren (US 2007/0298187 Al, pub. Dec. 27, 2007). Claims 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 18—202 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigren and Raney (US 5,951,771, iss. Sept. 14, 1999). 1 Claims 21—24 are not addressed in the Final Office Action. 2 The listing of claim 20 in the rejection under § 102(b) instead of § 103(a) is believed to be a typographical error, as claim 20 depends from claim 18 which is rejected under § 103(a). Additionally, claim 9 is rejected under both § 102(b) and § 103(a), but the claim is only discussed in the § 102(b) rejection. Compare Final Act. 3 with 4—5. Accordingly, we also understand the § 103(a) rejection of claim 9 to be a typographical error. 2 Appeal 2015-002385 Application 12/489,088 OPINION Claims 1—17 Appellants argue that claim 1 is not anticipated because Wigren does not teach “the shroud comprises: a substantially smooth and continuous inner wall defining a bowl through which a plume of the thermal spray apparatus travels, and at least one port in the inner wall structured and arranged to receive a powder injection nozzle that injects powder into the plume.” Appeal Br. 10. In particular, no part of Wigren would be considered “a bowl” as claimed. Id. at 13. The Examiner responds by arguing that the ring segment 6 is a bowl as “air and gas is capable of rotating in a circular configuration.” Answer 4. It is unclear whether the Examiner considers the ring 6 itself to be a bowl, or if the Examiner means to refer to the inner channel 13, where the gas rotates in the circular configuration. If the former, the illustrated ring does not have the same structure as a bowl and the Examiner has not identified any structure that could be consider equivalent. If the latter, this reading is inconsistent with the claim language. The claim language requires the inner wall to define the bowl “through which a plume of the thermal spray apparatus travels” and this same inner wall includes “at least one port. . . structured and arranged to receive a powder injection nozzle that injects powder into the plume.” If the Examiner is considering the inner channel 13 to be a bowl, this structure in Wigren is not part of the wall/structure that include ports “structured and arranged to receive a powder injection nozzle.” Thus, Wigren does not 3 Appeal 2015-002385 Application 12/489,088 disclose the claimed inner wall defining the bowl with the associated at least one port. For these reasons we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. As independent claims 11 and 17 include similar limitations as that discussed above, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of these claims for similar reasons. Claims 2—10 depend from claim 1 and claims 12—16 depend from claim 11. We do not sustain the anticipation or obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2—10 and 12—16 for similar reasons. We note that the Examiner’s reliance on the additional reference to Raney does not cure the defect noted above. Final Act. 5. Claims 18—20 Concerning independent claim 18, Appellants admit that “the plasma plume of WIGREN would produce an eddy current” (Reply Br. 7) and that Wigren discloses the claimed limitation of “injecting powder into the plume downstream of the outlet nozzle through the eddy current” (see Reply Br. 3 (“the arrangement of WIGREN is designed with powder injectors 10 that would extend into the . . . eddy current[] produced by the plume exiting the nozzle”).). Thus, the remaining issue is whether Wigren or Raney discloses or suggests “shrouding an eddy current generated by a plume exiting an outlet nozzle of a thermal spray device,” as required by claim 18. The Examiner found that “Wigren discloses the ring segment 6 can partially enclose [or shroud] the plasma ejected,” thus teaching the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5. 4 Appeal 2015-002385 Application 12/489,088 Appellants argue “that the Examiner has not identified any . . . disclosure . . . from which those ordinarily skilled in the art would understand that the described powder injection means of WIGREN is structured and/or positionable to act as a shroud, within the context of Applicants’ disclosure and claims.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellants argue that the definition of “shroud” should be determined based on its use in the Specification. Id. at 11. In particular, Appellants cite to the following: The powder injection ring includes a shroud that is sized and shaped to influence air flow in the vicinity of the outlet nozzle. In particular embodiments, the shroud substantially prevents disruption of the flow field, which may include eddy currents, in the vicinity of the outlet nozzle of the plasma gun. By protecting the flow field at the outlet nozzle, the shroud minimizes turbulent conditions that can disrupt the delivery of powder from the powder injection nozzles to the plasma plume. Specification 126 (emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 11. But as can be seen above, nowhere does this paragraph define “shroud.” Rather, this paragraph discusses the effect of “particular embodiments” of a shroud positioned “in the vicinity of the outlet nozzle” that “protects] the flow field at the outlet nozzle.” Appellants inappropriately attempt to read these limitations into the meaning of the word “shroud.” Claim 18 is directed to “shrouding an eddy current” that has exited an outlet nozzle. Appellants argument that a shroud should “protect[] the flow field at the outlet nozzle” would thus appear to be an inappropriate narrowing of the claim limitation. Further, nothing in Appellants’ Specification makes clear that Appellants have attempted to be their own lexicographer of the term “shroud.” See Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Without evidence in the 5 Appeal 2015-002385 Application 12/489,088 patent specification of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the term takes on its ordinary meaning.”). As the Examiner has found that Wigen teaches shrouding an eddy current and Appellants’ arguments against this finding rely on an inappropriate narrowing of the claim term “shroud,” we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18, and as Appellants do not provide any substantive arguments concerning the patentability of these claims, they fall with claim 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—17 are reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 18—20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation