Ex Parte Potyrailo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2016

11560476 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111560,476 11/16/2006
6147 7590 02/04/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. Kl-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Radislav Alexandrovich Potyrailo
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
202654-1 5869
EXAMINER
HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1797
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2016 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RADISLA V ALEXANDROVICH POTYRAILO,
DAVID JAMES MONK, and RYO TAMAKI
Appeal2014-004210
Application 11/560,476
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, and 18-20. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter (emphasis
added):
1. An apparatus for the detection of contaminants in a liquid,
compnsmg:
1 The Real Party in Interest is stated to be General Electric Company (Br. 3).
Appeal2014-004210
Application 11/560,476
a sensor znctuding a Jllm, a transducer, a purge chamber
disposed between the film and the transducer such that the film
and the transducer are in direct fluid contact with the purge
chamber, the purge chamber defined by a manifold, the
transducer and the film being secured by the manifold, and an
inlet and an outlet attached to the manifold to allow a purge
media to flow through the purge chamber, wherein the film is
disposed within an opening of a conduit containing a liquid with
a contaminant such that the film is in direct fluid contact with the
liquid, and wherein the film is made of a material that allows
ionic transport of a contaminant from the liquid, through the film,
and into the purge chamber; and
a controller electronically coupled to the transducer for
receiving electrical information from the sensor and determining
a concentration of the contaminant in the liquid.
(Br. 14, Claims App.). Independent claim 18 recites a nuclear power plant
comprised, in part, of the contaminant detector apparatus of claim 1 (id. at
15-16).
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
(a) Claim 1 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
Bellhouse et al. (US Patent No. 4,844,097, issued July 4, 1989) (hereinafter
"Bellhouse");
(b) Claims 3-5 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Bellhouse in view of Brown et al. (US Patent No. 5,607,566, issued
Mar. 4, 1997) (hereinafter "Brown");
(c) Claim 6 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Bellhouse in view of Nova et al. (US Patent No. 5,961,923, issued Oct. 5,
1999) (hereinafter "Nova");
2
Appeal2014-004210
Application 11/560,476
(d) Claims 8 and 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Bellhouse in view of Byers (US Patent No. 4,941,958, issued July 17,
1990);
(e) Claim 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Bellhouse in view of Law et al. (US Patent No. 5,208,165, issued May 4,
1993) (hereinafter "Law"); and
(f) Claims 19 and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Bellhouse in view of Law and further in view of Byers.
Appellants do not separately argue the rejections of dependent claims
3---6, 8, 9, 19, and 20 (Br. 9-12). In the absence of arguments specific to
their patentability, claims 3---6, 8, and 9 stand or fall with claim 1 and claims
19 and 20 stand or fall with claim 18. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence of
record supports the Examiner's finding that that the claimed subject matter
of representative independent claim 1 is anticipated within the meaning of
§ 102 by Bellhouse. A preponderance of the evidence also supports the
Examiner's§ 103 rejection of all the claims which depend on claim 1,
independent claim 18, and all of its dependent claims. We sustain the
Examiner's§ 102 and§ 103 rejections, as listed in (a) through (f) above, of
all the appealed claims for essentially the reasons set out by the Examiner in
the Final Office Action, including the Examiner's Response to Argument
section, and the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
3
Appeal2014-004210
Application 11/560,476
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § j02(b) (Claim j)
The main dispute in this rejection is whether Bellhouse describes the
limitation "the purge chamber defined by a manifold, the transducer and the
film being secured by the manifold" as required by the subject matter of
independent claim 1.
It is well established that the "PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification . . . . Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Since applicants may amend claims
to narrow their scope, "a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee." Id.
Appellants' Specification shows that the manifold can be constructed
of several parts and that each part may be used to secure the transducer
and/or the film (Spec. Figs. 4, 5). The Specification further explains that one
embodiment of their invention is the use of" a first film 80, which is secured
on all edges 82 ... by the manifold 62 such that the liquid 8 cannot flow
around the edges of the first film 80" (Spec. i-f 70 (emphasis added); Figs. 4--
6).
Appellants have not refuted with sufficient specificity the Examiner's
detailed findings that Bellhouse discloses "the purge chamber defined by a
manifold [constructed ofBellhouse's substrate 4, pipe 9, spacer 8 and ISFET
6], the transducer and the film being secured by the manifold" as recited in
claim 1 (Final Act. generally, Ans. generally, Br. generally).
Appellants' argument that Bellhouse's open volume in a 0.1 mm thick
spacer 8 cannot be defined by a manifold that secures the transducer and
4
Appeal2014-004210
Application 11/560,476
film (Br. 10) is unavailing. First, the Examiner's position that the open
volume in pipe 9 and spacer 8 (i.e., "the purge chamber" of claim 1 )) is
defined by Bellhouse's manifold (Ans. 6-7) is reasonable in light of the
Specification, which discloses Appellants' own manifold is made of multiple
parts. Second, Bellhouse's manifold must secure membrane 5 (i.e., "the
film" of claim 1)) so that liquid cannot flow around the film's edges to
separate two chambers (Bellhouse, col. 1; 11. 54---66). Third, Appellants have
not identified reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Bellhouse' s
multipart manifold secures electrodes 7 ("the transducer" of claim 1 )).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's finding of anticipation. Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner erred reversibly, especially in light of how their own multi part
manifold defines the purge chamber and secures the film and the transducer.
Accordingly, we affirm rejection (a).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Beyond their arguments with respect to rejection (a) above,
Appellants do not argue with sufficient specificity any of the § 103
rejections listed as (b) to (t) above, all of which rely in part upon Bellhouse
(Br. 11-12).
Accordingly, we affirm rejections (b) through (t).
DECISION
The Examiner's § 102 and § 103 rejections are affirmed.
5
Appeal2014-004210
Application 11/560,476
THvIE PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6