Ex Parte Srinivasan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

14087268 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/087,268 11122/2013
46442 7590 06/28/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Giriraj Srinivasan
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.
83400536;67186-0SlPUSl 1119
EXAMINER
ALVARE,PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GIRIRAJ SRINIVASAN,
NEIL ROBERT BURROWS, and JAMES McMANAMAN
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated June 9, 2016 ("Final
Act."), and as further explained in the Advisory Action dated July 26, 2016,
rejecting claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a coupling in a vehicle and,
more particularly, to a coupling to connect a fluid supply and a cold plate of
an electric vehicle battery pack." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A coupling for an electric vehicle battery
pack, comprising:
an attachment member configured to connect
to an extension so that a fluid can communicate
directly from the attachment member into the
extension, the extension secured to a cold plate;
a fluid inlet extending from the attachment
member; and
a fluid outlet extending from the attachment
member.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 5, 6, 7, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter regarded as the invention. 2,3
2 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 21 as part of this
Rejection. See Final Act. 2-3. In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the
Rejection as to these claims. See Ans. 2-3.
3 In the original statement of this Rejection, the Examiner stated that
claims 6 and 7 are rejected "based on their dependency from the claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. [§] 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph." Final Act. 3.
In the statement of the Rejection in the Answer, the Examiner only includes
claim 6 as rejected based on its dependency from claim 5. See Ans. 3.
Because claim 7 also depends from claim 5 (see Appeal Br. 14 (Claims
App.)), we include claim 7 in this Rejection.
2
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 19-21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ichiyanagi (US 6,443,223 B2,
issued Sept., 3, 2002) and Zahn4 (US 2013/0196207 Al, published Aug. 1,
2013).
3. Claims 7, 9, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ichiyanagi, Zahn, and Karube (US 5,477,919, issued
Dec. 26, 1995).
4. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ichiyanagi, Zahn, and Doll (US 6,796,370 Bl, issued
Sept. 28, 2004).
5. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ichiyanagi, Zahn, and Mongia (US 2007 /0076374,
published Apr. 5, 2007). 5
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 - The rejection of claims 5, 6, 7, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
A. Claims 5-7
The Examiner rejected claim 5 (and dependent claims 6 and 7) as
indefinite, finding that "the limitation 'a second plane containing a line' is
unclear, in context, since it cannot be discerned which line of infinite
possibilities bound[ s] the scope of this limitation." Final Act. 3. For
4 As "Zahn," the Examiner states to rely on "International Patent
Document No. W02012019719 wherein US PG Pub. 2013/0196207 is used
as an English language equivalent." Final Act. 4.
5 The Examiner provides two alternative bases to reject claim 16
based on the same combination of prior art. See Final Act. 18-20.
3
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
examination purposes, the Examiner viewed this limitation as being met by
"any line in any direction." Id.
Appellant argues that the limitation at issue is "clear" and that "[t ]he
skilled person would be able to ascertain whether or not a line is contained
within a plane." Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellant, "[t]here are not
'infinite possibilities' as the Examiner alleges since the line contained within
plane is 'transverse' to the first plane." Id. Appellant contends that "'[a]ny
line in any direction' would not meet this feature, rather only lines that are
transverse to the first plane." Id.
The Examiner responds that "[t]he claimed limitation 'an interfacing
surface that is aligned along a second plane containing a line that is
transverse to the first plane' is not definite as it does not distinctly define the
orientation of the line or rather in what plane the line is transverse." Ans.
22. The Examiner then provides the following figure, and states "if you
have a line that is contained 'in a plane' (see annotated figure below) the line
may be transverse multiple planes (the line below is contained within the 'x-
z' plane and transverse the 'y-z' plane and the 'x-y' plane, establishing an
infinite number of line possibilities[)]":
Id. The figure provides an x-y-z coordinate axis system and a "Line." The
Examiner states that "the line is not clearly defined and in indeed may exist
4
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
in infinite spaces along either planes which are transverse a 'second plane'
as claimed" and that "it is not clear as how a 'line' is defining the structural
relationship of the surfaces when the line is not positively defined regarding
its spatial orientation." Id. at 23.
A claim fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
"when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear." In re
Packard, 751F.3d1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (percuriam)
(approving, for pre-issuance claims, the standard from MPEP § 2173.05(e));
see also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5
(PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach for assessing
indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard). We agree with
Appellant that the meaning of the claim language at issue is not unclear.
We first discuss the figure provided by the Examiner. We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner's characterization of the figure is incorrect. As
noted by Appellant, "[t]he x-z plane in the Examiner's annotated figure ...
does not 'contain' the designated line." Reply Br. 1. Instead, because the
"line only intersects with the x-z plane at a single point," "[t]he x-z plane ...
contains, at most, a point [of the 'Line'], not the line." Id. at 2. Moreover,
contrary to the Examiner's position (Ans. 22), the line provided actually
traverses 6-i.e., crosses-the x-z plane, not the y-z plane or the x-y plane.
We tum now to the limitation "a second plane containing a line that is
traverse to the first plane" and first address the term "containing." The
phrase "a second plane containing a line" means that the entire "line" is
within the "second plane." See Appeal Br. 3 (stating that "[a] line can
6 We understand the phrase "is traverse to" in claim 5 to mean
"traverses."
5
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
intersect with a plane ... at multiple points if the plane is containing the
line"). Given that a plane, in general, contains an infinite number of lines,
the Examiner (in a general sense) is correct that the phrase "second plane
containing a line" does not, by itself, define the spatial orientation of the
"line." Ans. 23. We agree with Appellant, however, that the entirety of the
limitation "a second plane containing the line that is traverse to the first
plane" does properly define the orientation of the "second plane" with
respect to the "first plane." Specifically, of the infinite lines "contain[ed]"
within the "second plane," at least one of those "line[s]" (viewing "a" in the
phrase as one or more) must "traverse" (i.e., cross) the "first plane." See
Appeal Br. 3.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5, or the
rejection of claims 6 and 7, which depend from claim 5, as indefinite.
B. Claim 17
The Examiner rejected claim 1 7 as indefinite, finding that "the
limitation 'second direction that is transverse to the first direction' is
unclear, in context, since it cannot be discerned how a fluid that travels in all
three directions would be confined to travel within only one direction."
Final Act. 3.
Appellant notes that claim 17 recites: "the fluid enters the attachment
member 'from a heat exchanger in a first direction."' Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant argues that "[a] person having skill in this art would not interpret
fluid entering the attachment feature from a heat exchanger as traveling in
'all three directions"' and that "[i]t is unclear how a fluid could ever travel in
'all three directions' while entering a structure." Id.
6
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
The Examiner responds that "[i]t would be obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art that fluid flow within a pipe is indeed in all directions
rendering any limitation tied to a fluid flow direction indefinite." Ans. 23.
The Examiner provides the following figure, stating that, as shown, "the
flow will undoubtedly travel in multiple directions contrary the Appellant's
argument, rendering any such structure tied to a flow direction indefinite":
Id. at 24.
In the context of claim 1 7, the "fluid" travels into and between the
recited "attachment member" and "cold plate extension" in certain
"direction[s]." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). We agree with Appellant that
the use of the term "direction" in various instances does not render claim 17
unclear. Although the Examiner is correct that, in certain flow regimes
(such as turbulent flow), different portions of a fluid may travel in different
directions, the overall direction of flow may be in a single direction. Indeed,
this concept is reflected in the Examiner's figure, which includes a series of
lines-all pointed to the right-to illustrate the overall velocity of the fluid
as a function of distance from the plane surface at the bottom.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 as indefinite.
7
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
Rejection 2 - The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10--13,
15, 17, and 19-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
A. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 19
For this Rejection, as to claim 1, the Examiner identified connectable
device 46 in Figure 7 of Ichiyanagi as the "attachment member" and
identified sockets 48 and 47 as the "fluid inlet" and "fluid outlet,"
respectively. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner stated that "[a]lthough
Ichiyanagi discloses a right angle connection for a fluid inlet and outlet on
an attachment member to a heat exchanger, Ichiyanagi fails to disclose the
cold plate is for an electric vehicle battery pack and the fluid inlet and fluid
outlet extend from the attachment member." Id. at 5. The Examiner found
that "Zahn teaches a fluid inlet (connection support, 403) extending from the
attachment member (shown in Zahn figure 4) and a fluid outlet (connection
support, 402) extending from the attachment member for a vehicle battery."
Id. (citing Zahn i-f 33). According to the Examiner, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention "to
provide Ichiyanagi with extending inlets and outlets, as taught by Zahn, the
motivation being to allow for a quick connection method in order to expedite
assembly of the cooling system or to further regulate the incoming or
outgoing flow." Id.
Appellant contends that the proposed modification renders Ichiyanagi
"unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" (Appeal Br. 5-6 (citing In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)) and that the Examiner's reasoning
lacks rational underpinning (id. at 6-7).
We are unable to assess the merits of these arguments because we
cannot identify with reasonable certainty the specific modification of
8
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
Ichiyanagi in view of Zahn proposed by the Examiner. To aid our
discussion, we provide Figure 7 of Ichiyanagi:
Fig.7 C4 .____. __ ,.,..-,___ ___ lr-. .,/'
l
46 48
Ichiyanagi describes Figure 7 as "a front view partly broken away and
showing the connecting device of FIG. 6 and a liquid receiver as a
connectable device before the receiver is connected to the heat exchanger."
Ichiyanagi, col. 2, 11. 10-13.
We now identify three possible options for the proposed modification,
but we note that the intended modification may be a different modification.
Certain statements by the Examiner seem to indicate, as a first option,
modifying Ichiyanagi by fitting into each of sockets 4 7 and 48 a tubular
member (similar to connection supports 402 and 403 in Zahn) of such length
that each tubular member would "extend[] from the attachment member"-
i.e., connectable device 46. See, e.g., Final Act. 4--5 (identifying socket 48
9
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
as the "fluid inlet" and socket 4 7 as the "fluid outlet" and stating that it
would have been obvious "to provide Ichiyanagi with extending inlets and
outlets, as taught by Zahn"). To the extent this first option is the intended
modification, we note that the Examiner does not discuss modifying the
structures on the right side of Figure 7-such as, for example, tubular
members 44 and 45-to connect with the now-modified structures in
connectable device 46. See Reply Br. 2 (stating that the Examiner "proposes
to add connection supports 402 and 403 of Zahn to the attachment member
46 of Ichiyanagi without modifying the tubular members 44 and 45").
Other statements by the Examiner seem to indicate, as a second
option, modifying Ichiyanagi by attaching to the top surface of connectable
device 46 (as situated in Figure 7) two tubular members (similar to
connection supports 402 and 403 in Zahn) of such length that each tubular
member would "extend[] from the attachment member"-i.e., connectable
device 46. For example, in the Answer, the Examiner provides the
following annotated version of Figure 7 of Ichiyanagi (previously provided
on page 6 of the Office Action):
10
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
.·.·.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• .. ' ·.
I ,.... " . " ""'<:.·· . .;:. ~ . :: I ¥0iflr!iQ,, vU1~a1.,-e :
~-.................................................. ::
---Ei~i~;~~;;~--~r ·1t;;··----··i
~ !niets :and Outlet ~
··----··-···----···-··----···-------···----·--···--)
lchiyanagi Figure 7
Ans. 24. In the annotated Figure 7, the Examiner identifies a "Common
Surface" and "Extension[ s] of the Inlets and Outlet." Id. The Examiner
states that "[t]he extensions supplied by Zahn are simply ... extension tubes
that are located before the fluid travels through the attachment member and
on to the heat exchanger." Ans. 26. This statement, along with annotated
Figure 7 and the fact that element 3 6 in Ichiyanagi is a "heat exchanger"
support the possibility of the second option above.
Certain statements by the Examiner also seem to indicate, as a third
option, modifying Ichiyanagi by (1) removing tubular members 44 and 45
from bores 41 and 42, respectively, and (2) inserting tubular members 44
and 45 into sockets 47 and 48, respectively, such that each tubular member
44 and 45 "extend[s] from the attachment member"-i.e., connectable
device 46. For example, in the Answer, the Examiner states that "the tubular
members ( 44, and 45) extend from the attachment member ( connectable
device, 46, of Ichiyanagi)." Ans. 25.
11
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
Because the Examiner has not adequately explained the specific
modification of Ichiyanagi in view of Zahn proposed, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, or the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 19, which
depend from claim 1.
B. Claims 10-13, 15, 17, 20, and 21
For the claims in this group, Appellant argues the patentability of the
two independent claims---claims 10 and 15-based on the same arguments
and does not provide separate arguments for any dependent claims. Appeal
Br. 10-11 (addressing claim 10 and stating, "[r]egarding claim 15, the
rejection fails for the reasons mentioned in response to the rejection of claim
10). We select claim 10 as representative, with the remaining claims
standing or falling with claim 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
For claim 10, the Examiner relied on Ichiyanagi for certain limitations
but stated, "[a]lthough Ichiyanagi discloses a fluid inlet and outlet on an
attachment member to a heat exchanger, Ichiyanagi fails to disclose the cold
plate is for an electric vehicle battery pack." Final Act. 8. The Examiner
found, however, that "Zahn teaches a fluid inlet (connection support, 403)
extending from the attachment member (shown in Zahn figure 4) and a fluid
outlet (connection support, 402) extending from the attachment member for
a vehicle battery." Id. (citing Zahn i-f 33). According to the Examiner, it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to "provide Ichiyanagi with a heat exchanger for a vehicle, as
taught by Zahn, the motivation being to cool the components of the vehicle
that generate heat during operation to negate failure and mechanical
degradation." Id.
12
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
Appellant argues that the Examiner "essentially asserts that it would
be obvious to modify Ichiyanagi to include a vehicle so that Ichiyanagi
could cool a vehicle." Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, "[t]his
reasoning is circular and fails to support a prima facie case of obviousness."
Id. Appellant contends that "[t]here is no benefit to modifying Ichiyanagi to
include a vehicle" and that "[t]he alleged benefit would only be realized
when Ichiyanagi is modified to include a vehicle." Id. Appellant argues that
"the skilled person would not modify Ichiyanagi to include a vehicle in order
to cool the vehicle" and that "Ichiyanagi, without the modification, does not
include a vehicle." Id. at 10-11.
The Examiner responds that, "as put forth within the rejection, a
recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is
intended to be employed, regarding the vehicle, does not differentiate the
claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural
limitations of the claims, as is the case here." See Ans. 32 (citing MPEP
§ 2114); see also Final Act. 9 (similar statement).
The only recitation of the term "vehicle" in claim 10 is in the
preamble, which recites "[a]n assembly for an electric vehicle battery pack."
Id. at 15 (Claims App.). We view the language "for an electric vehicle
battery pack" as setting forth an intended use of the claimed "assembly"
rather than as limiting the scope of the claim. See Bi con, Inc. v. Straumann
Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Preamble language that merely
states the purpose or intended use of an invention is generally not treated as
limiting the scope of the claim."). Appellant does not direct us to, nor do we
find based on our own review, evidence suggesting that the preamble is
limiting or that the stated intended use distinguishes over the relied-upon
13
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
prior art. Because claim 10 does not require the presence of a "vehicle," we
are not apprised of error based on this argument.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 10. Claims 11-13,
15, 17, 20, and 21 fall with claim 10.
Rejection 3 - The rejection of claims 7, 9,
14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
A. Claims 7 and 9
Claims 7 and 9 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 14--15 (Claims
App.). The Examiner's added reliance on Karube does not remedy the
deficiencies in the rejection based on Ichiyanagi and Zahn discussed above
regarding claim 1 (see supra Rejection 2 § A). Thus, for the same reasons
discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 9.
B. Claim 14
Appellant does not separately argue claim 14 (Appeal Br. 11), which
depends from claim 10. Thus, for the reasons discussed above (see supra
Rejection 2 § B), we sustain the rejection of claim 14.
C. Claim 22
For claim 22 (which depends from claim 10), the Examiner relied on
Ichiyanagi as modified by Zahn for certain limitations but stated that
Ichiyanagi as modified "fails to disclose a plurality of walls extending away
from the interfacing surface to a fastener surface, wherein the fastener
surface provides an opening to receive a fastener that secures the attachment
member to the extension, the fastener surface separate and distinct from the
plurality of walls." Final Act. 15-16. The Examiner relied on Karube to
address those deficiencies in Ichiyanagi as modified by Zahn. Id. at 16.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
14
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
skill in the art at the time of the invention to "provide Ichiyanagi with
fasteners, as taught by Karube, the motivation being to securely attach the
mounting flange to the heat exchanging device for increased longevity and
operational life." Id.
Appellant highlights the limitation in claim 22 that recites:
a plurality of walls extending away from the interfacing surface
to a fastener surface, the interfacing surface interfacing with the
cold plate extension when the coupling is attached to the cold
plate extension, the fluid inlet extending from at least one of the
plurality of walls of the extension, the fluid outlet extending from
at least one of the plurality of walls of the extension.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.), quoted at id. at 11-12. Appellant states that
"the Examiner points to the sockets 4 7, 48 as teaching the claimed fluid inlet
and fluid outlet" and argues that "sockets 4 7, 48 are not 'extending from'
any wall, and certainly are not 'extendingfrom' a wall that extends from 'the
interfacing surface to a fastener surface' as do the plurality of walls in"
claim 22. Id. at 12.
As background and to aid our discussion, we provide an annotated
version of a portion of Figure 7 of Ichiyanagi:
15
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
46
I
48
The annotated version of Figure 7 provides three overlaid shapes identifying
certain surfaces of connectable device 46. As the recited "interfacing
surface," the Examiner identifies the surface on the right side of connectable
device 46, indicated by a dotted oval in the annotated version of Figure 7
above. See, e.g., Final Act. 15 (identifying the "interfacing surface" as
"wherein the connectable device ( 46) and connector body ( 43) assemble").
We understand that, in the modified device, the "fastener surface" would be
located on the surface on the left side of connectable device 46, indicated by
16
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
a dotted rectangle above. See id. at 15-16. The Examiner indicates that the
recited "plurality of walls extending from the interfacing surface to [the]
fastener surface" includes the "bottom most wall relative to the figure,"
which is indicated by a solid oval in the annotated version of Figure 7 above.
Id. at 15.
Claim 22 recites a "fluid inlet extending from at least one of the
plurality of walls" and a "fluid outlet extending from at least one of the
plurality of walls." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). To
address these limitations, the Examiner again referenced the annotated
version of Figure 7 of Ichiyanagi provided by the Examiner (see supra page
11) and stated:
the fluid inlet (socket, 48) extending from (shown in annotated
Ichiyanagi figure 7, wherein the inlet is extending from the
bottom most wall relative to the figure) at least one of the
plurality of walls of the extension (walls constituting the box
shape of the connectable device, 46, shown in Ichiyanagi figure
7), the fluid outlet (socket, 47) extending (shown in annotated
Ichiyanagi figure 7, wherein the outlet is extending from the
bottom most wall relative to the figure) from at least one of the
plurality of walls of the extension, Ichiyanagi.
Final Act. 15-16. Thus, the Examiner includes socket 48 in the "fluid inlet"
but also includes the unnumbered vertical bore within connectable device 46
on the left side (identified by the Examiner with the shorter of the two
arrows from "Extension of the Inlets and Outlet" in the annotated version of
Figure 7). Similarly, the Examiner includes socket 47 in the "fluid outlet"
but also includes the unnumbered vertical bore within connectable device 46
on the right side (identified with the longer of the two arrows from
"Extension of the Inlets and Outlet" in the annotated version of Figure 7).
17
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
We see no error in the Examiner's determination that each of these
two bores "extend[ s] from" the surface in the solid oval in the annotated
version of Figure 7 above-i.e., the identified "at least one of the plurality of
walls"-as required by the limitations at issue. See Ans. 30-31 ("The
annotated inlets and outlets (see annotated figure 7 of Ichiyanagi) clearly
demonstrates that the inlets and outlets extend away from the bottommost
wall of the figure, meeting the limitations put forth in Claim 8."), 33
(addressing claim 22 by referring to the discussion regarding claim 8). As
noted by the Examiner, claim 22, unlike claim 1, does not require the "fluid
inlet" and "fluid outlet" to "extend[] from the attachment member." See id.
at 30-31 ("Claim 1 puts forth the inlet and outlet extend from the attachment
member as a whole, not that the inlet and outlet extend from any single wall
of the attachment member, therefore the scope of the claims vary.").
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 22.
Rejections 4 and 5 -The rejection of claim
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant does not separately argue claim 16 (Appeal Br. 12), which
depends from claim 15. Thus, for the reasons discussed above (see supra
Rejection 2 § B), we sustain the rejections of claim 16.
DECISION
We reverse the decision to reject claims 5, 6, 7, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we reverse the decision to reject claims
1-3, 5-9, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we affirm the decision to
reject claims 10-17 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
18
Appeal2017-003466
Application 14/087 ,268
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
19