Ex Parte Tsui

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

11850527 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111850,527 0910512007
50163 7590 07/01/2016
WANG&HO
66 HILLTOP ROAD
MILLINGTON, NJ 07946
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Herman Yik Wai Tsui
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.
HKAI01-2US 7642
EXAMINER
JOYNER, KEVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1799
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
georgewang@bei-ocean.com
georgewang.hk@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HERMAN YIK WAI TSUI
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision2
finally rejecting claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Lanz (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0257299 Al, pub. Nov. 16, 2006).
App. Br. 2. Claim 14 is also pending and stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious in view of Lanz. Answer mailed Aug. 15, 2014 ("Ans."), 5---6. 3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alphatech International Limited.
Appeal Brief filed May 5, 2014 ("App. Br."), 1.
2 Final Office Action mailed November 7, 2013 ("Final").
3 Appellant states that claim 14 "is not subject to this appeal," but "should be
allowable when claim 1 is found allowable by virtue of its dependency thereon."
App. Br. 2.
1
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
The invention relates "to the application of plasma for air treatment and
material processing and more particularly pertains to a plasma device for air
purification and disinfection." Specification filed September 5, 2007 ("Spec."),
1:9-11. Appellant expressly states that the claims stand or fall together. App. Br.
2. Accordingly, we decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1, reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A system for treating air and processing materials,
compnsmg:
at least one diffusive plasma reactor, each diffusive plasma
reactor having insulated electrodes, one being anode and another
being cathode at any given moment in operation, and a reaction
chamber defined between the insulated anode and cathode;
a diffuser being located in the reaction chamber between the
insulated anode and cathode and dividing the reaction chamber into
two or more sub-chambers or partially filling the reaction chamber;
and
a power supply for supplying high voltage alternating current
between the insulated anode and cathode;
wherein the insulated electrodes generate plasma within the
reaction chamber to treat air passing through the reaction chamber or
process materials placed in the reaction chamber.
Id. at 7 (emphasis added). 4
Lanz discloses "a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) cell constructed of
catalytically active materials ... used to create [a] non-thermal plasma (NTP)
field" for use, e.g., "as part of [an] apparatus for treating gases[, e.g., air (Lanz,
Abstract),] containing VOC's and/or HVOC's." Id. i-f 12. Lanz describes each
DBD 6 as including a rectangular frame 24 enclosing and supporting a plurality of
4 Claim 15, the only other independent claim on appeal, is directed to "[a] method
for air purification and disinfection," and includes the limitations shown in italics
in claim 1. Id. at 8-9.
2
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
electrodes 25, 26, positioned in an alternating "hot" and "ground" arrangement. Id.
i-f 37. Electrodes 25, 26 are made of a catalytically active material and have
ceramic insulators sealed to the ends thereof. Id.
The Examiner finds Lanz's electrodes 25, 26 having insulated ends meets
the claim recitation of "insulated electrodes." Ans. 10-11.
Lanz discloses that dielectric barrier plate 29 is a ceramic, either borosilicate
glass or a high purity alumina dielectric, and is positioned on both sides of the
electrodes with an air gap 30, surrounding all exposed parts of the electrodes.
Lanz i-f 37. Lanz discloses that to gain maximum benefit from the NTP,
catalytically active materials can be coated on dielectric barrier 29. Id. i-fi-1 3 7, 39.
The Examiner finds Lanz's dielectric barrier plate 29 meets the claim
recitation of a "'diffuser' as the dielectric material disperses and scatters the
charges." Ans. 8; see also id. at 16 (citing Spec. 2:30-3:5 (explaining that a
dielectric barrier material collects or accumulates charges produced by the
electrodes)).
Appellant contends the above-stated findings by the Examiner are based on
an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim terms "insulated electrodes" and
"diffuser." See App. Br. 5-6. With respect to the term "insulated electrodes,"
Appellant argues the Examiner's interpretation "is contrary to the term's dictionary
meaning: covered with a material or substance in order to stop heat, electricity, or
sound from going into or out of it." Id. at 5 (citing Exhibit 1, Evidence Appendix
to the App. Br.). Appellant contends the Examiner's definition of a diffuser as a
material that disperses and scatters charges, is contrary to the meaning of the term
"diffuser" as used in the Specification. Id. According to Appellant, based on
explicit statements in the Specification, the term "diffuser" should be interpreted as
a device that does not provide a current limiting function, but does provides
3
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
additional nucleation sites on its surfaces between two insulated electrodes. Id.
(citing Spec. 11: 15-28); cf id. at 6 (arguing the mere fact that dielectric barrier
plate 29 may be constructed from a dielectric material does not mean it necessarily
functions as a diffuser as claimed).
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[C]laim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art").
Turning first to the language of the claims, we agree with the Examiner that
the claims, on their face, do not require explicitly that ( 1) the electrodes are
completely insulated, or covered in their entirety with an insulating material or
substance, or that (2) the diffuser provide additional nucleation sites on its
surfaces. See Ans. 7, 10. Upon review of the claim language in light of the
Specification, we further agree with the Examiner that Appellant proposes
construing the claim terms "insulated electrodes" and "diffuser" to require features
described in the Specification in connection with the preferred embodiment of the
invention. See id. at 10, 12. As explained below, however, the Specification
clearly indicates the invention is not intended to be so limited.
With respect to the term "insulated electrodes," the Specification discloses
that "each cylindrical reactor unit 11 includes an outer electrode 13 and an inner
electrode 16 and both may be insulated from the annular space which forms the
reaction chamber 12 where electrical discharges are excited to generate plasma."
Spec. 10:25-27 (emphasis added). "In the preferred embodiment, the insulators
15, 18 of the electrodes 13, 16 take the form of dielectric tube made of glass. They
may also be in the form of plates or made from any insulating or dielectric
4
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
material." Id. at 10:27-30. We find no indication that the electrodes require a
complete insulative coating. Rather, the phrase "may be insulated" supports the
Examiner's contention that the claim term "insulated electrodes" reads on an
embodiment in which only a portion, e.g., the ends, of the electrodes are insulated.
We further note that Appellant's relied-upon dictionary definition likewise
supports an interpretation of "insulated electrodes" as encompassing electrodes that
are coated only partially by an insulating material or substance. See Exhibit 1
(defining "insulate" as: "to cover, line, or separate with a material that prevents or
reduces the passage, transfer or leakage of heat, electricity or sound" (emphasis
added)).
With respect to the term "diffuser," the Specification states that the diffuser
"may partially fill the reaction chamber between the electrodes ... to maxim[ize]
the availability of additional nucleation sites on electrically isolated surfaces of the
diffuser" and "may be electrically isolated to allow accumulation of charge on its
surfaces." Spec. 5: 17-23 (emphasis added). The disclosure on page 11 of the
Specification, referenced by Appellant in support of its claim interpretation, is a
description of the preferred embodiment of the invention (see id. at 10:2). We do
not agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand page
11 of the Specification as defining the term "diffuser" as not encompassing a
dielectric barrier material of the type used in a reactive bed design. Rather, the
Specification merely distinguishes the structure of the preferred embodiment of
diffuser 19 (described as "not tak[ing] up a significant portion of the volume within
the reaction chamber 12 so that the availability of additional nucleation sites on the
electrically isolated surfaces of the diffuser 19 is maximized") from "a typical
reactive bed design" (described as "fill[ing] the space in the reaction chamber with
dielectric packing material"). Id. at 11 :30-34.
5
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
In sum, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
term "insulated electrodes" encompasses electrodes that are coated only partially
by an insulating material or substance. Although Appellant contends the claim
term "diffuser" has a specific meaning defined in the Specification, Appellant does
not disagree with the Examiner that the plain meaning of the term "diffuser" is a
"dielectric material that disperses and scatters the charges" (Ans. 8). See App. Br.
5 ("Such construction is erroneous because it is contrary to the meaning of the term
used in the specification."); Reply Brief, filed Oct. 15, 2014, 1-2 (arguing the
claims recite a diffuser for a plasma reactor, not a "generic diffuser," and that "the
only known diffuser for a plasma reactor is defined and described in the present
specification"). We, therefore, determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claim term "diffuser" is a "dielectric material that disperses and scatters the
charges," and that this term encompasses devices that perform a current limiting
function and does not require a device that provides additional nucleation sites on
its surface.
Turning now to the merits of the rejection, Appellant argues Lanz's
electrodes 25, 26 having "end plate ceramic insulators are not insulated electrodes
because they are not covered with something that can present electricity from
going into or out of it." App. Br. 5. Appellant's argument is not persuasive
because, as explained above, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claim term "insulated electrodes" encompasses electrodes that are coated
only partially by an insulating material or substance.
Appellant argues Lanz' s dielectric barrier material "provid[ es] the
fundament[al] current limiting function in a typical reactive bed design and does
not function as a diffuser for providing additional nucleation sites on its surfaces"
as required by the appealed claims. App. Br. 4. We are not persuaded by the
6
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
argument because the broadest reasonable interpretation of "diffuser" encompasses
devices that perform a current limiting function, and does not require a device that
provides additional nucleation sites on its surface.
Though not discussed in its Appeal Brief, Appellant also submitted, under
37 C.F.R. § 1.132, the Declaration of Prashant M. Valanju, PhD. as Exhibit II
(Evidence Appendix to the App. Br.). Dr. Valanju testified that Appellant, a
former colleague, asked him to review the present application and Lanz and
"provide an opinion as to the concept of the terms 'insulated electrode' and
'diffuser' as used in the field [of the] invention." Exhibit II, 1. Dr. Valanju
testified that he has "experience and training in the fields of physics, electric and
electronic engineering." Id. at 1-2. Dr. Valanju testified that Lanz's electrodes 25,
26
are not insulated electrodes and no one with a basic knowledge in the
relevant field would conclude otherwise. In Lanz, the electrodes are
either naked (i.e., not covered with any insulating layer) or coated
with conductive material. . . . There is nothing in Lanz to
electronically insulate the electrodes in the device.
Id. i-f 1. Dr. Valanju testified that Lanz's dielectric barrier plate 29 cannot be a
diffuser within the meaning of the claims because the diffuser of the invention
"plays a particular role, which cannot be realized if used between two sets of non-
insulated electrodes because it would drastically affect the electrical properties of
the plasma reactor and would not be electrically isolated to provide extra
nucleation sites to support the formation of discharge filaments." Id. i-f 2.
We agree with the Examiner that Dr. Valuanju's declaration is not
persuasive evidence of non-obviousness because it is based on the same, overly
narrow, and incorrect, interpretation of the claims advanced by Appellant. See
Ans. 14--16.
7
Appeal2015-000644
Application 11/850,527
In sum, for the reasons stated above and in the Answer (see Ans. 6-16), we
are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred in finding claims 1-9, 11-13, and
15-18 are anticipated by Lanz. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-18 is affirmed. Appellant has not challenged the
Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Lanz. See App. Br. 2. Accordingly, we likewise affirm the Examiner's decision to
reject claim 14.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8