Ex parte Snyder

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 1999

08442525 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 16, 1995.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT D. SNYDER
_____________
Appeal No. 97-4097
Application 08/442,5251
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and
METZ and PATE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 97-4097
Application 08/442,525
2
This is an appeal from the examiner's refusal to
allow claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22,
as amended after final rejection. These are the only claims
that remain in the application.
The invention is directed to a turbulence fluid
display device which generates a pleasing continually changing
visual fluid pattern. A further description of the claimed
subject matter can be had by reference to the appealed claims
appended to the appellant's brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of anticipation and obviousness are:
Fleemin 4,490,931 Jan. 1, 1985
Muscat et al. (Muscat) 5,052,714 Oct. 1, 1991
Horiuchi 5,301,444 Apr. 12, 1994
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Fleemin.
Claims 5 through 7, 9, 16, 21 and 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fleemin in view of
Horiuchi.
Appeal No. 97-4097
Application 08/442,525
3
Claims 10 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Fleemin in view of Muscat.
A further understanding of the examiner's position
with respect to the rejections on appeal can be had by refer-
ence to pages 3 through 5 of the Examiner's Answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal
in light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner.
As a result of this review, we have reached the conclusion
that the applied prior art does not establish the anticipation
or obviousness of any claim on appeal. Therefore, the rejec-
tions on appeal are reversed. Our reasons follow.
Appellant argues on pages 5 and 6 of the brief that
the primary reference to Fleemin does not disclose a means for
automatically varying at least one of the direction of rota-
tion of the output shaft of the motor and the speed of rota-
tion of the output shaft between at least two states in a
Appeal No. 97-4097
Application 08/442,525
We have construed the limitation in light of the appara-2
tus for performing the function disclosed in appellant's
specifica-tion and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson Co.,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
4
repeating, continuous cycle. The examiner points to rheostat2
48 as a means for controlling the rate of motor operation. We
agree with appellant that the rheostat of Fleemin does not
provide a means for automatically varying when this means-
plus-function limitation is interpreted in light of appel-
lant's specification
and with regard to the equivalents of the described means
therein. In this instance, the examiner can point to no
structure in Fleemin similar to the timer and stepper con-
trolled motor disclosed in appellant's specification and/or
equivalents thereof, nor can the examiner point to any func-
tion in Fleemin that is similar to the function claimed by
appellant. In fact, the examiner never makes any factual
finding that Fleemin has a means for automatically varying
as claimed in independent claim 1.
Appeal No. 97-4097
Application 08/442,525
5
We have also reviewed the prior art teachings of
Horiuchi and Muscat, but we find therein no teaching or sug-
gestion that can supply the missing features we have pointed
out with regard to Fleemin. Accordingly, we are constrained
to reverse the rejections of all claims on appeal.
REVERSED
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
JAMES M. MEISTER ) APPEALS
AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFER-
ENCES
)
)
)
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WFP:psb
Appeal No. 97-4097
Application 08/442,525
6
William M. Hanlon, Jr.
Young & Basile, P.C.
3001 West Big Beaver Road
Suite 624
Troy, MI 48084-3109