Ex Parte StovingDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 17, 201211881952 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 17, 2012) 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. 11/881,952 07/30/2007 Paul N. Stoving 13682.117082 3839 59081 7590 07/17/2012 KING & SPALDING, LLP 1100 LOUISIANA ST., STE. 4000 ATTN.: IP Docketing HOUSTON, TX 77002-5213 EXAMINER FISHMAN, MARINA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/17/2012 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 PAUL N. STOVING ____________ Appeal 2010-004365 Application 11/881,952 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004365 Application 11/881,952 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-31 (App. Br. 5). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention Exemplary independent claim 1 follows: 1. An electrode assembly of a vacuum interrupter, comprising: an electrical contact; a coil conductor; and a conductive circular member disposed between the electrical contact and the coil conductor, the conductive circular member comprising a first portion defined by a first diameter and a second diameter, the second diameter being larger than the first diameter and being substantially equal to an outside diameter of the coil conductor, the outside diameter of the coil conductor defining at least a portion of an outer periphery of the electrode assembly, and a second portion defined by the second diameter and a third diameter, the third diameter comprising a largest diameter of the circular member, the third diameter being larger than the second diameter and being substantially equal to an outside diameter of the electrical contact, wherein a cross-section of the second portion has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of a cross-section of the first portion. Appeal 2010-004365 Application 11/881,952 3 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-19, 22-25, and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Watanabe (U.S. 6,376,791) (Ans. 4-7). ISSUE Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issues: 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Watanabe discloses an electrode assembly comprising a “coil conductor defining at least a portion of an outer periphery of the electrode assembly,” as recited in independent claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Watanabe discloses an electrode assembly comprising a “content backing comprising a portion that extends in an axial direction outside the diameter of the coil conductor such that the portion of the contact backing surrounds at least a longitudinal portion of the coil conductor . . . the portion of the contact backing defining at least a part of an outer periphery of the electrode assembly,” as recited in independent claim 8 and as similarly recited in independent claim 14? ANALYSIS In finding that Watanabe anticipates claim 1, the Examiner contends that the coil conductor 7 of Watanabe’s electrode defines “at least a portion of an outside periphery of the electrode assembly” (Ans. 4). However, Appellant argues that “the coil 7 is located in an interior region of the electrode and, thus, does not define at least a portion of an outer periphery of the electrode” (App. Br. 17 (emphasis omitted)). We find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. As shown by Fig. 6 of Watanabe, the coil 7 is Appeal 2010-004365 Application 11/881,952 4 depicted in the central, interior portion of the electrode and therefore, does not appear to define a portion of an outer periphery of the electrode as the Examiner contends. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as well as claims 2-7 dependent therefrom as anticipated by Watanabe. In finding that Watanabe anticipates independent claims 8 and 14, the Examiner contends that the cylindrical portion 8 of Watanabe’s electrode forms a portion of a contact backing that “extends in an axial direction outside the diameter of the coil [4,7], such that a portion of the backing surrounds a longitudinal portion of the coil conductor … the portion of the contact backing defining at least a part of an outer periphery of the electrode assembly” (Ans. 5). Appellant argues that Watanabe’s “support cylinder 8 is disposed in an interior region of the electrode and does not define any portion of an outer periphery of the electrode” (App. Br. 15). We find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. As shown by Fig. 6 of Watanabe, the cylinder 8 is depicted in the central, interior portion of the electrode and therefore, does not appear to define a portion of an outer periphery of the electrode as the Examiner contends. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 8 and 14 as well as claims 9-13 and 15-31 dependent therefrom as anticipated by Watanabe. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-31. REVERSED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation