Ex Parte Reichler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 5, 201613060797 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/060,797 02/25/2011 Jan Reichler 22876 7590 02/09/2016 FACTOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, LTD, 1327W. WASHINGTON BLVD. SUITE5G/H CHICAGO, IL 60607 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. OST-111013 1973 EXAMINER KURPLE,KARL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1717 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2016 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): jmerritt@factoriplg.com ysolis@factoriplg.com cschroeder@factoriplg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAN REICHLER and WERNER SWOBODA Appeal2014-006238 Application 13/060,797 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, GEORGE C. BEST, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citation omitted). We affirm. Appeal2014-006238 Application 13/060,797 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants 1 describe the present invention as "an apparatus for deposition of lacquer overspray .... " Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An apparatus for deposition of lacquer overspray from the used booth air of painting facilities laden with overspray, compnsmg a) at least one separation surface, along which booth air is guided and which is connected in an electrically conductive manner to a pole of a high voltage source; b) at least one electrode device arranged in the booth air, which is associated with the separation surface and which is capable of being connected to another pole of the high voltage source; wherein c) a plurality of electrode devices allocated to different separation surfaces are provided, which are configured to be charged with high voltage independently of each other, wherein the different separation surfaces are planar and are arranged parallel to a direction of flow of the booth air; and/or d) a plurality of regions of electrode devices are configured to be charged independently of each other. THE REFERENCES Klemperer us 2,817,412 Dec. 24, 1957 Porle, et al. (Porle) us 4,764,188 Aug. 16, 1988 Lannefors, et al. (Lannefors) us 5,264,014 Nov. 23, 1993 Feldman, et al. (Feldman) us 5,733,360 Mar. 31, 1998 Makarov FR 2 911 633 July 25, 2008 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Eisenmann AG. Br. 3. 2 Appeal2014-006238 Application 13/060,797 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Makarov, Lannefors, and Klemperer. Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected Claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Makarov, Lannefors, Klemperer, and Feldman. Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over of Lannefors, and Klemperer. Rejection 4. The Examiner rejected Claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lannefors, Klemperer, and Feldman. Rejection 5. The Examiner rejected Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Porle and Klemperer. Rejection 6. The Examiner rejected Claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Porle, Klemperer, and Feldman. ANALYSIS As explained below, we affirm each of the Examiner's six rejections. The Appellants do not independently argue dependent claims 2-3. Appellants' argument with respect to claims 4-7 (corresponding to rejections 2, 4, and 6) is based solely on its arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1. We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 2-7 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Rejections 1, 2, 3, and 4 are based primarily on the teachings of Lannefors and Klemperer. Lannefors teaches that an electrostatic separator may be used to efficiently, quietly, and safely extract paint from air coming 3 Appeal2014-006238 Application 13/060,797 from a paint booth. Final Act. 4; Lannefors 2:32-37, Fig. 1. It also teaches multiple planar separation surfaces connected to electrodes and arranged parallel to booth air flow. Answer 5; Lannefors Fig. 1, 3:52-11. Klemperer teaches the use of electrostatic precipitators for removing impurities from air. Klemperer 1: 15-21. Klemperer teaches the use of multiple plate structures in separate compartments. Id. at 1:70-2:25; 3:52- 4: 11. For example, it explains: "The collecting surface is provided by a plate structure forming in each compartment a bank comprising a multiplicity of open ended gas channels which may be of a hexagonal cross section." Id. at 2: 10-13. Current is supplied to each compartment "through individual feeders ... so that the electrodes 18 may be electrically charged." Id. at 2:15-17; Fig. 1. The electrode banks may receive power independent from each other. Id. at 1 :47-53. Thus, individual banks may be turned off for cleaning. Id. at 3: 10-32. Lannefors and Klemperer both address electrostatic precipitators and the problem of removing impurities from the air using precipitators. We find by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that Klemperer' s technique of individually powering banks would improve Lannefors in the same way it improves Klemperer' s devices. Improvement of Lannefors in this fashion is no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions. Cf KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellants assert that Lannefors only discloses charging the electrodes of the precipitator "by means of one single high voltage source" and "fails to offer the possibility of independently charging a plurality of electrode devices or a plurality of regions of electrode devices .... " Br. 11. 4 Appeal2014-006238 Application 13/060,797 Appellants also argue that Klemperer fails to disclose "planar separating surfaces to which a plurality of electrode devices are allocated" and argues that Klemperer teaches only the charging of annular separation surfaces. Id. Finally, Appellants argue that claim 1 permits "booth air flowing through different regions [to be] supplied to separation surfaces or not." Id. at 12. Appellants' arguments fail for several reasons. First, claim 1 does not require more than one high voltage source. This is clear because claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further limits the claim so the electrode devices are "connected to the same high voltage source." See also Spec. 4:6-18 (explaining that electrodes could be connected "to one and the same high voltage source). Second, Klemperer teaches planar separating surfaces to which a plurality of electrode devices are allocated and teaches that banks may be individually powered off, as explained above. Third, claim 1 does not require or contemplate controlling whether booth air goes to separation surfaces or not. Fourth, and most importantly, Appellants' argument is deficient in that it attacks the references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. Cf In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 ( CCP A 19 81 ). Appellants do not argue that combining the references is improper and do not identify any individual element of claim 1 that is allegedly missing from the combination. Br. at 11-12. Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in rejections 1--4. Rejection 5-6. Like Lannefors, Porle teaches the use of parallel collection plates of an electrostatic precipitator for removing paint from air. Porle Fig. 1, 5 :31-40. The collection plates are arranged parallel to the direction flow of booth air. Id. at Figs. 1 and 2. A plurality electrodes are allocated to the surfaces. Id. at 5:31--40.We find by a preponderance of the 5 Appeal2014-006238 Application 13/060,797 evidence that a person of skill in the art would recognize the advantage of combining Klemperer with Porle for the same reasons that person would recognize the advantage of combining Klemperer with Lannefors as explained above. See also Final Act. 12. Improvement of Porle by combining the teachings of Klemperer is no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions. Appellants argue that neither Porle nor Klemperer teach "planar separating surfaces to which a plurality of electrode devices are allocated" or teach "charging planar separation surfaces that are arranged parallel to the direction of the flow of the booth air independently of each other." Appellants' arguments fail to recognize the full teachings of Klemperer as discussed above. Also, Appellants again attack references individually rather than identifying any feature that is missing from the combination of Hans Klemperer and Porle. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's fifth and sixth rejections are erroneous. DECISION For the above reasons, each of the Examiner's rejections of claims 1- 7 is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation