Ex Parte Velez

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2008

10747720 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAMON M. VELEZ, JR.
____________

Appeal 2008-1680
Application 10/747,720
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: February 29, 2008
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellant claims a method of simultaneously flushing the inner
surfaces of a plurality of cavities in each of a plurality of parts such as gas
turbine blades. The method comprises: installing a plurality of parts 39, 41,
Appeal 2008-1680
Application 10/747/720

42 into a holder 33; providing a guide member 43 having a plurality of
passages 44, 46-49, 51; providing a manifold 52 opposite the holder 33 with
the manifold having a source 67 of high pressure fluid connected thereto and
having a plurality of probes 54, 56-59, 61 extending therefrom; advancing
the manifold and probes such that the probes pass through the guide member
passages and into the internal cavities of the parts to be flushed; and causing
high pressure fluid to flow through the probes and into the cavities to flush
out any foreign matter that may reside therein (claim 11; Figs. 1-2).
Representative independent claim 11 reads as follows:
11. A method of simultaneously flushing the inner surfaces of a
plurality of cavities in each of a plurality of parts comprising the steps of:

installing a plurality of parts into a holder in spaced apart relationship
in a first plane, with each part having at least a pair of openings and
associated internal cavities spaced apart in a plane other than said first plane;

providing a guide member near said part openings said guide member
having a plurality of passages formed therein, including adjacent passages
that are in a common plane parallel to said first plane and including adjacent
passages that are in a common plane other than said first plane and wherein
each of said passages has an axis aligned in coincidence with a respective
part opening;

providing a manifold opposite said holder with said manifold having a
source of high pressure fluid connected thereto and having a plurality of
probes extending therefrom with each of said passages having an axis
aligned coincident with a respective probe tube axis;

advancing said manifold and said plurality of probes along the axes of
said probes such that said probes pass through the respective passages and
into respective internal cavities; and

2
Appeal 2008-1680
Application 10/747/720

causing high pressure fluid to flow through said probes and into said
cavities to flush out any foreign matter that may reside on the inner surfaces
thereof.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Swanick 1,492,905 May 6, 1924
Kenton 5,464,479 Nov. 7, 1995
Buongiorno 5,679,174 Oct. 21, 1997

All appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buongiorno in combination with Swanick or Kenton.
The Examiner finds that "[t]he [Biongiorno] reference discloses all
limitations with the exception of installing a plurality of parts into a holder,
providing a guide member, and providing a manifold as claimed" (Ans. 3-4).
The Examiner relies on Swanick or Kenton to supply these aspects of the
claim 11 method and concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious for one
skilled in the art to use the multiple dispensing means taught by Swanick or
Kenton … in the Buongiorno process for the purpose of treating multiple
components simultaneously to reduce the treatment time and to increase the
process efficiency" (Ans. 4).
The deficiency of the Examiner's obviousness conclusion is that it
fails to account for all of the claim features the Examiner acknowledges are
missing from Buongiorno. For example, the above-quoted conclusion does
not specifically address the conceded failure of Buongiorno to disclose the
claim 11 step of providing a manifold having a plurality of probes extending
therefrom whereby the manifold and probes are advanced such that the
probes pass into the internal cavities of the parts to be flushed. This
3
Appeal 2008-1680
Application 10/747/720

deficiency of the Examiner's obviousness conclusion is fatal to the rejection
because, as correctly argued by Appellant (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3),
neither Swanick nor Kenton contains any teaching or suggestion of this
claim 11 requirement. Moreover, it is significant that the Appellant's
aforementioned argument has not been rebutted by the Examiner (Ans. 5).
Under these circumstances, the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the method defined by
independent claim 11. We cannot sustain, therefore, the § 103 rejection of
claim 11 or of claims 2-20 which depend therefrom as being unpatentable
over Buongiorno in combination with Swanick or Kenton.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

cam

MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP
250 SOUTH CLINTON STREET, SUITE 300
SYRACUSE, NY 13202
4