Ex Parte Sachs

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 4, 2011

10967889 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2011)

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.
10/967,889 10/18/2004 Christian Sachs GP-305239 9311
65798 7590 04/04/2011
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
FOX, JOHN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2011 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 CHRISTIAN SACHS
____________________

Appeal 2009-009950
Application 10/967,889
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and STEFAN
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-009950
Application 10/967,889
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 14-17. The Examiner has
withdrawn claims 3-5, 11-13, and 18-20 from consideration. No other
claims are pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a compressed tank system including a
pressure regulator and a heater at a high pressure side of the regulator to
reduce cooling of the gas within the tank as it is removed from the tank.
Spec, para. 1. Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
9. A compressed tank system comprising:
a tank holding a compressed gas at a pressure up to 700
bar or greater;
a pipe coupled to the tank for allowing the compressed
gas to be removed therefrom; and
a heat source directly coupled to the pipe for heating the
pipe for preventing the gas within the pipe from cooling down
as it is being removed from the tank.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sugalski
Crowley
Parchamazad
US 5,356,589
US 5,408,957
US 2004/0081861 A1
Oct. 18, 1994
Apr. 25, 1995
Apr. 29, 2004
Appeal 2009-009950
Application 10/967,889
3
REJECTIONS1
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Ans. 4.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Crowley. Id.
Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crowley and Parchamazad. Ans. 5.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crowley and Sugalski. Ans. 5.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

OPINION
The Written Description Rejection
The basis of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 14-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, is that “[t]here is no clear support in the originally
filed application to have the heat source ‘directly’ coupled to the pipe.” Ans.
4. We do not agree with the Examiner.

1 As ostensibly recognized by Appellant (App. Br. 3), Appellant’s challenge
to the Examiner’s objection to the drawings relates to a petitionable matter
and not to an appealable matter, and thus is not within the jurisdiction of the
Board. See In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). Appellant’s
petition directed to this matter was dismissed in a DECISION ON
PETITION dated June 4, 2007.
Appeal 2009-009950
Application 10/967,889
4
Paragraphs 16 and 18 of the original Specification of the present
application disclose that “[a]ccording to one embodiment of the invention, a
wire 20 [to which electrical current is applied to provide resistive heating to
heat the pipe 14] is wrapped around the pipe 14 within the pressure regulator
assembly” and that, in another embodiment of the invention, “the pipe 14 is
made of a material so that it can be wrapped around itself” so as to provide
heat to the high pressure side of the pipe 14. Further, original drawing
figure 1 depicts a wire 20 wrapped around the pipe 14, and original drawing
figure 2 depicts a part of the pipe 14 wrapped around the high pressure side
of the pipe 14. These disclosures and illustrations clearly allow persons of
ordinary skill in the art to recognize that Appellant invented what is claimed
(i.e., had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the
present application), so as to satisfy the written description requirement.
The Examiner’s position in making this rejection appears to be
predicated, at least in part, on a misapprehension, or mischaracterization, of
Appellant’s argument that Crowley does not satisfy the limitation in
independent claims 1, 9, and 16 that the heat source be “directly coupled to
the pipe.” Ans. 4, 6. The Examiner appears to be interpreting Appellant’s
argument as asserting an interpretation of “directly coupled” that would not
be satisfied by a coupling effected by wrapping around. We do not
understand that to be what Appellant is arguing. Rather, we understand
Appellant to be arguing that Crowley’s heater 212 is directly coupled to the
chamber 26, not to a supply pipe, and thus is not directly coupled to a supply
pipe. See App. Br. 7. As such, Appellant is not asserting an interpretation
of “directly coupled” that would not be satisfied by the wrapping of the wire
20 or part of the pipe 14 itself around pipe 14, as disclosed in Appellant’s
original Specification and drawings.
Appeal 2009-009950
Application 10/967,889
5
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Crowley’s electric heater 212, on which the Examiner reads the “heat
source” claimed in each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, is wrapped
around the chamber 206 to heat the chamber 206 to volatilize the fuel and,
optionally, also heats the control module 26. Col. 7, ll. 9-13; fig. 8.
Crowley does not describe wrapping the electric heater 212 around the
supply pipe which carries the fuel to and from the chamber 206. We do not
agree with the Examiner’s finding that the chamber 206 is part of the pipe.
See Ans. 5. Rather, Crowley’s chamber 206 is a reservoir in which the fuel,
which may be liquid when passing through solenoid valve 204, resides to be
heated and volatilized. Col. 6, l. 68 to col. 7, l. 13. Accordingly, we agree
with Appellant that Crowley does not disclose a heat source directly coupled
to the pipe, as called for in independent claims 1, 9, and 16. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17 as being
anticipated by Crowley.
The Examiner does not rely on Parchamazad or Sugalski for any
teaching directed to coupling of a heat source to a supply pipe, or otherwise
articulate any reason why it would have been obvious to modify Crowley to
directly couple a heat source to the pipe, as called for in independent claims
1, 9, and 16, and thus in all of the dependent claims. Accordingly, we also
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7 and 15 as being
unpatentable over Crowley and Parchamazad and of claim 8 as being
unpatentable over Crowley and Sugalski.
Appeal 2009-009950
Application 10/967,889
6

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

mls