Ex parte Vannucci

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2000

08833508 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2000)

Application for patent filed April 7, 1997.1
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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ROBIN C. VANNUCCI, JR.
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2848
Application No. 08/833,5081
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before CALVERT, ABRAMS and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 35 through 38, and 40 through 42, which
are all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 1
through 34 and 39 have been canceled.
Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 2
Application No. 08/833,508

The appellant's invention relates to a heat exchange
manifold. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claim 35, which appears in the
appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Dunlap 2,119,907 Jun. 7,
1938.
The rejections
Claims 35 through 38 and 40 through 42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dunlap.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14, mailed February 1, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 13, filed December 8, 1998) and reply brief
Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 3
Application No. 08/833,508
(Paper No. 15, filed April 6, 1999) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 4
Application No. 08/833,508
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.
As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the
claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference,
or 'fully met' by it."
In explaining the rejection of claims 35 through 38 and
40 through 42 as anticipated by Dunlap, the examiner states:
. . . Note the “heat exchange manifold” 30
comprising a central pipe, a plurality of
spoke pipes and a valve 14 (Figure 1). A
nozzle or spoke 44 is shown. Concentric
heat exchange structure is shown and
defined by the cylinder 8. Contrary to
applicants remarks, Dunlap in Figure 4
clearly shows the “plurality of spoke
pipes” which radiate “... approximately
perpendicular from the central pipe and
independently define a plurality of spoke
pipe sets”. The spokes 44 are
“approximately perpendicular from...”
central pipe 30. A valve 14 is clearly
shown. An outer concentric pipe section
includes the cylinder 8. A first 12 and
second fitting 10 is shown. [final
rejection at pages 2-3].
Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 5
Application No. 08/833,508
Appellant argues that Dunlap does not disclose spoke
pipes which independently define a plurality of spoke pipe
sets as required by claim 35.
However, Dunlap does disclose a plurality of spoke pipes
which may be considered a plurality of spoke pipe sets as
broadly claimed. We note that claim 35 does not recite a
plurality of exclusive spoke pipe sets. While the
specification may as appellant argues disclose that a spoke
pipe plane is defined by two or more spoke pipes, claim 35
does not recite this feature. We will not read limitations in
the specification into claim 35. Therefore, we will sustain
the rejection as to claims 35 and claims 36 through 38
dependent therefrom because claims 36 through 38 stand or fall
with claim 35 (brief at page 3).
In regard to claim 40, Dunlap discloses a valve 14 which
regulates steam to the drum (Page 1, line 55 to Page 2, line
2). However, valve 14 is not installed between a first spoke
pipe set and a second spoke pipe set and does not prohibit
“communication through the central pipe between the spoke
pipes in said first spoke pipe set and the spoke pipes of said
Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 6
Application No. 08/833,508
second spoke pipe set” as is required by claim 40. Therefore,
we will not sustain the rejection as to claim 40.
Claim 41 recites “at least one spoke pipe valve fitted to
a downwardly directed spoke pipe.” Dunlap does not disclose a
valve on any of the spoke pipes 44. As such, we will not
sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 41.
In the examiner’s view, the container 8 of Dunlap forms
the “outer concentric pipe section” and elements 10 and 12 are
the first and second fittings as recited in claim 42.
However, elements 10 and 12 do not secure the cylinder 8 to a
roller so that the annular passageway of cylinder 8 is in
communication with the hollow interior of the roller (See Fig.
1). As such, we will not sustain the rejection as to claim
42.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 35-38 is sustained.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 40-42 is not sustained.
Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 7
Application No. 08/833,508
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
Affirmed-In-Part
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 8
Application No. 08/833,508
MEC/kis
LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY,
HILL & LABOON
600 Travis
Suite 3400
Houston, TX 77002-3004