Ex Parte Neyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

11977068 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

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.
11/977,068 10/23/2007 Barry Neyer 41067-6120 9526
57449 7590 05/31/2016
SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN, PA
c/o PETER NIEVES
1000 ELM STREET
MANCHESTER, NH 03105-3701
EXAMINER
WEBER, JONATHAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BARRY NEYER, DANIEL RAYMOND KNICK,
PAUL THOMAS MOORE, and ROBERT TOMASOSKI
____________

Appeal 2014-003724
Application 11/977,0681
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1–6, 10, and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[the] subject invention relates to an
initiator,” which is a device “including a charge initiated to ignite or begin
the burning of a larger main charge or propellant.” Spec. 2; ll. 6–10.

1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Excelitas
Technologies Corp. and UBS AG. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-003724
Application 11/977,068

2
CLAIMS
Claims 1–6, 10, and 11 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. An initiator comprising:
a housing adapted to be received in an igniter or rocket
motor;
at least one charge at a distal end of the housing;
an electro-explosive device behind the charge for
detonating the charge when subject to a voltage;
a pressure bulkhead behind the electro-explosive device,
and
an electronic subsystem in the housing connected to the
electro-explosive device through the bulkhead and including:
a lead for providing the voltage to the electro-
explosive device to initiate it, and
a switch in the lead which does not conduct if errant
voltages are present on the lead to prevent initiation of the
electro-explosive device until the correct voltage is
present.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Brooks2 in view of Boucher.3

2 Brooks et al., US 2005/0178282 A1, pub. Aug. 18, 2005.
3 Boucher et al., US 2003/0075069 A1, pub. Apr. 24, 2003.
Appeal 2014-003724
Application 11/977,068

3
DISCUSSION
For the reasons set forth below, we are persuaded by Appellants’
argument that the prior art does not teach or suggest a pressure bulkhead as
required by each of independent claims 1 and 10. See Appeal Br. 5–16.
The Examiner finds that Brooks discloses an initiator as claimed
except that Brooks’ housing is not adapted to be received in an ignitor or
rocket motor and that Brooks’ device does not include a pressure bulkhead
as claimed. Final Action 3–4. The Examiner relies on Boucher for these
missing elements. Id. at 4–5. Specifically, the Examiner finds:
Boucher discloses an initiator (See Figures 1A & 1B)
adapted to be received in an igniter or rocket motor (See Figures
1A), a pressure bulkhead (Unlabeled element adjacent element
234, Figure 1 B, see below) behind the electro-explosive device
(234), and the electronic subsystem is connected to the electro-
explosive device through the bulkhead (Via elements 254b,
Figure 1 B). In regards to the pressure bulkhead, the definition
of bulkhead as it relates to this specific case is “a structure or
partition to resist pressure” and the examiner points to
paragraphs 0039 and 0040 of Boucher that disclose the features
of the “rupturable disc 252c”. In order for this disc to displace
or burst, the pressure would have to be directed toward this
structure; therefore the element indicated below functions as a
“pressure bulkhead” and directs the pressure from the reactive
material toward the “rupturable disc”.
Id. at 4. The Examiner relies on an annotated portion of Boucher’s Figure
1B in which the alleged “unlabeled element” has been added:
Appeal 2014-003724
Application 11/977,068

4

Id. at 5.
We agree with Appellants that the alleged structure, i.e. the
“unlabeled element,” relied upon by the Examiner as a pressure bulkhead, is
not identified or described in the cited portions of Boucher. We are also
persuaded by Appellants’ argument that a pressure bulkhead is not
necessarily present in Boucher, as the Examiner seems to indicate, because
the Examiner has not identified any portion of Boucher suggesting that the
elements are compartmentalized or that the presence of a bulkhead is
necessary to rupture disc 252c when the output charge is initiated. See
Appeal Br. 8–12. We also agree that the Examiner provides no support for
the finding that the use of a pressure bulkhead “is a known and common
element in the art used in conjunction with a ‘rupturable disc’ as would be
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 8. Thus, we
determine that the Examiner has not shown, on the record before us, that the
prior art teaches or suggest a pressure bulkhead as claimed.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1 and 10 over Brooks and Boucher.
Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.
Appeal 2014-003724
Application 11/977,068

5
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–6,
10, and 11.

REVERSED