11357989 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2012)

Ex Parte Raynaud

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 28, 2012

11357989 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte DELPHINE RAYNAUD __________ Appeal 2010-004752 Application 11/357,989 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004752 Application 11/357,989 2 A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The claims on appeal are directed to an aseptic packaging installation comprising a packaging zone and an intervention zone. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An aseptic packaging installation comprising a bench under a ceiling and a line of machines mounted on the bench in a packaging zone subjected to a sterile laminar flow of filtered air traveling vertically from the ceiling at a rate adapted to establish a first pressure in the packaging zone that is higher than a surrounding pressure, an intervention zone extending on at least one side of the packaging zone, the intervention zone being subjected to a one-way flow of filtered air travelling vertically from the ceiling of the intervention zone at a rate that is adapted to establish a second pressure in the intervention zone that is lower than the first pressure but higher than the surrounding pressure and is at a temperature permitting access to the packaging zone without interrupting operation of the installation. App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added).1 The following rejections are before us on appeal:2 1 Appeal Brief dated June 2, 2009. 2 The Appellant also seeks review of the objection of claims 14-16 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) and the § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 15. App. Br. 10. The § 112, first paragraph, rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer, and the Examiner correctly notes that the objection under § 1.75(c) is a petitionable matter. Examiner’s Answer dated September 16, 2009 (“Ans.”), at 3. Appeal 2010-004752 Application 11/357,989 3 (1) the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Taggart3; (2) the rejection of claims 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Taggart and Sfondrini4; and (3) the rejection of claims 11 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Taggart, Sfondrini, and Yamaguchi.5 B. DISCUSSION Taggart discloses an aseptic processing apparatus. 3 US 6,475,435 B1 issued November 5, 2002. 4 US 4,597,192 issued July 1, 1986. 5 JP 11-342917 published December 14, 1999. We have considered the English translation of Yamaguchi which is of record in the instant Application. See, e.g., Ans. 12. Appeal 2010-004752 Application 11/357,989 4 Taggart Figure 3 depicts a side view of the aseptic processing apparatus. The Examiner finds that the apparatus comprises a line of machines 110, 108, 94, 106, 103, 300, 302, 290 mounted in a packaging zone 166 and subjected to a sterile laminar flow of filtered air. The Examiner contends that air travels vertically from the ceiling from sterile air conduits 140, 142, and 144 at a rate adapted to establish a first pressure in the packaging zone 166. The Examiner also contends that the apparatus includes an intervention zone 164 extending on one side of the packaging zone 166. Ans. 6. The Appellant argues that Taggart does not discuss laminar flow. App. Br. 13. In particular, the Appellant contends: the air coming vertically from the nozzles 140, 142, 144 travels horizontally in zone 166 to reach the exhaust ports and the opening 282. Such a flow can not be a laminar flow because air travelling horizontally is perturbed by the air travelling vertically and inversely. Reply Br. 2.6 The Appellant’s argument is supported by the record on appeal. Taggart discloses that sterile air enters the sterilization tunnel 90 through conduits 140, 142, and 144 and a portion of the air exits the tunnel through exhaust ports 153 and openings 282 located on the ceiling or top wall of the sterilization tunnel. Taggart, col. 10, ll. 7-20. Taggart does not expressly describe this air flow as laminar, and the Examiner does not explain, in any detail, why the air flow is inherently laminar. For this reason, the § 102(b) rejection is reversed. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or 6 Reply Brief dated November 16, 2009. Appeal 2010-004752 Application 11/357,989 5 inherently.”). The Examiner does not rely on Sfondrini or Yamaguchi to cure this deficiency in Taggart. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections are also reversed. The Appellant also argues that Taggart does not identify zone 164 as an “intervention zone.” Rather, the Appellant argues that zone 164 is a sterilization zone that is upstream from sterilization or packaging zone 166 and receives a portion of the line of machines. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3. This argument is also supported by the record on appeal. The claims on appeal recite that the “line of machines” is mounted in a packaging zone. The Examiner finds that elements 110, 108, 94, 106, 103, 300, 302, 290 correspond to the claimed “line of machines.” Zone 164 receives a portion of this line of machines. See Taggart Fig. 3. Thus, zone 164 forms part of the packaging zone rather than a separate “intervention zone” as alleged by the Examiner. For this additional reason, the § 102(b) rejection is reversed. The Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to add an intervention zone to the apparatus of Taggart in view of the teachings of Sfondrini and/or Yamaguchi. See Ans. 11 (merely relying on Sfondrini as providing an alternative to the configuration of zone 164 in Taggart). Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections are also reversed for this additional reason. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2010-004752 Application 11/357,989 6 tc 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. 11/357,989 02/22/2006 Delphine Raynaud 4005-0275PUS1 7547 60601 7590 02/29/2012 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC 4000 Legato Road Suite 310 FAIRFAX, VA 22033 EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1775 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2012 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)