Ex Parte Reichler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2016

13060797 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016)

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