Ex Parte SachsDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 4, 201110967889 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2011) Copy Citation 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 The Examiner has withdrawn claims 3-5, 11-13, and 18-20 from consideration.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation