Ex Parte Paschal et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2012

10139513 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2012)

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