Ex Parte Paschal et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 22, 201210139513 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/139,513 05/07/2002 Charles R. Paschal JR. MMA98-35 01CON 5575 27370 7590 03/22/2012 OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND MATERIEL COMMAND ATTN: MCMR-JA (MS. ELIZABETH ARWINE) 504 SCOTT STREET FORT DETRICK, MD 21702-5012 EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3772 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2012 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 CHARLES R. PASCHAL JR., ORLANDO J. ILLI JR., GEORGE W. HAUBEIL, JAMES R. GAUGER, and ROBERT L. MULLINS ____________________ Appeal 2010-003981 Application 10/139,513 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, GAY ANN SPAHN, and CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003981 Application 10/139,513 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 6, 10 and 14-17. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to convertible patient isolation pod. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An isolation pod for an individual patient, comprising: a flexible, transparent air impermeable sheet member defining at least a first and second end, said first end and said second end being spaced apart, said sheet member including a first edge disposed between said first and second ends, said first edge defining a first cooperating member of a sealing element, a second cooperating member of said sealing element where contacting said first and second cooperating members elements provide an airtight sealing element, said first end incorporating a first integrated feedthrough for directionally controlled air flow, said feedthrough defining an integrated unidirectional flow control valve and an opening for permitting air flow in a first selected direction into the pod, said second end incorporating a second integrated feedthrough for directionally controlled air flow, defining an integrated unidirectional flow control valve and an opening for permitting air flow in a said first selected direction out of the pod, each of said feedthroughs having select cross-sectional dimension; an air blower including a nozzle corresponding to the cross- sectional dimension of said feedthrough, said nozzle being insertable into said feedthroughs for establishing an airtight seal therewith, said air blower having an air port configured to receive and retain an air filter where said air blower selectively communicates filtered air with respect to the interior of the pod, and a plurality of access gloves each including a hand and forearm portal, said access gloves being integrally formed in said sheet like member to facilitate isolated patient care. Appeal 2010-003981 Application 10/139,513 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parker (U.S. 3,492,987, iss. Feb. 3, 1970), Scott (U.S. 4,950,222 iss. Aug. 21, 1990), and Heimlich (U.S. 3,463,159, iss. Aug. 26, 1969). Ans. 3. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parker, Scott, Heimlich and Chen (U.S. 5,251,457, iss. Oct. 12, 1993). Ans. 5. OPINION The Examiner found that Parker discloses the basic device claimed and that Scott teaches the use of a filter as claimed. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that neither Parker nor Scott teach the use of unidirectional feedthrough valves as required by each of the independent claims involved in this appeal. Ans. 4. The Examiner cites Heimlich to account for this deficiency, reasoning “the valves as taught by Heimlich could be incorporated into the grommets to prevent air from flowing into the pod or out of the pod. The flow control valves as taught by Heimlich would allow the medical attendant to provide better precision air flow into and out the pod.” Ans. 4, 6. It is undisputed that Heimlich teaches the type of valve used by Appellants: “Each of the feedthroughs includes a reinforcing plastic grommet 20 and a one way He[i]mlich style valve 22 . . . He[i]mlich valves, permitting fluid flow in only one direction, are well known and are disclosed in US 3,463,159.” Spec. 10-11, para. [0033]. However, the Examiner does not provide any evidentiary support to demonstrate that it was known that Appeal 2010-003981 Application 10/139,513 4 Heimlich’s valves could function “to provide better precision air flow into and out the pod.” App. Br. 7. In contrast, Heimlich “relates generally to surgical apparatus, and has particular reference to an instrument for drainage of the chest.” Heimlich, col. 1, ll. 29-31. Thus, the record before us indicates that, at the time the invention was made, the only individuals with knowledge that such a valve could be used in isolation pods were Appellants. Thus, we are constrained to conclude that in reaching a conclusion of obviousness “that which only the inventor taught [was] used against its teacher.” See In re Fine 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejections cannot be sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6, 10 and 14-17 are reversed. REVERSED MP Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation