Ex Parte Vinjamuri

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 9, 2012

12028165 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GOPALA KRISHNA VINJAMURI
____________

Appeal 2011-005264
Application 12/028,165
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA. E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS and
PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gopala Krishna Vinjamuri (Appellant) seeks our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9.
Claims 5, 8, and 10-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-005264
Application 12/028,165

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a seamless metal liner . . .
for use in a fiber-wrapped composite cylinder, wherein the liner includes an
end cap attached to a dome end to strengthen the liner.” Spec. 1, [Para 1].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal and is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A liner for a composite reinforced high pressure gas tank
comprising:
(a) a metal tube that is seamless, comprising a sidewall, a
top end and a bottom end, wherein said top end is contoured to
seamlessly transition from the sidewall into an extended
cylindrical neck configured with an opening, wherein said
bottom end is contoured to seamlessly transition from the
sidewall into a second extended cylindrical neck configured
with an opening;
(b) a top metal end cap comprising an inner surface and
an outer surface with solid metal therebetween, wherein the
entire inner surface is in direct contact with the top end,
wherein the top metal end cap is of seamless construction; and,
(c) a bottom metal end cap has a mating shape of the
bottom end and is attached to the bottom end, wherein the
bottom metal end cap is of seamless construction.
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Sakaguchi (US 2004/0104236 A1; pub. Jun. 3, 2004).
2. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakaguchi.
Appeal 2011-005264
Application 12/028,165

3
3. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sakaguchi and Hembert (US 2004/0026437 A1; iss. Feb. 12, 2004).
4. Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Felbaum (US 6,089,399; iss. Jul. 18, 2000) and Sakaguchi.
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Sakaguchi discloses “a
bottom metal end cap” attached to the bottom end of the metal tube as called
for in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
In each rejection on appeal, the Examiner relies on Sakaguchi to
disclose a bottom end cap on the bottom end of the metal tube. Ans. 7, 9,
10, 12. The Examiner states:
The Examiner notes that Sakaguchi et al. anticipates both
the top end with top end cap and the bottom end with bottom
end cap by illustrating and describing the top end with top end
cap structure (FIGS. 1-2; [0031-35]) and the process of making
it (FIGS. 3A-3F; [0037-42]) by way of example, and therefore
similarly anticipates the bottom end with bottom end cap. This
is supported by [0044] which states “the short hollow
cylindrical blank 21 may be a hollow cylinder both ends of
which are open. In this case, predetermined regions respectively
starting from both ends will be necked by spinning.” This
spinning stage of the process is further described in [0039],
wherein a predetermined region of “the elongated hollow
cylindrical blank 211 ... starting from the opening end is necked
by spinning” which is depicted in FIG. 3C. It therefore follows
that both ends are processed according to FIGS. 3C-3F, the
final structure of which is illustrated on the top end by way of
example in FIGS. 1-2.
Appeal 2011-005264
Application 12/028,165

4
Ans. 7, ll. 1-12.
Appellant argues that Sakaguchi does not disclose a bottom metal end
cap. App. Br. 19. Appellant contends that paragraph [0044] of Sakaguchi
“deals with a method of preparing the body of Sakaguchi’s tank starting
from a cylinder with the same top and bottom configuration” and “does not
disclose a bottom reinforcing collar.” Id.
Sakaguchi relates to an improvement of “a high pressure tank into
which high-pressure gas is charged.” Page 1, para. [0002]. Sakaguchi
describes that high-pressure tanks into which a gas is charged and stored at
high pressure are generally subjected to winding, which is a technique for
wrapping carbon fibers or the like around the tank body for reinforcement.
Page 1, para. [0004]. Sakaguchi also describes that “the vicinity of the
boundary between the dome section and the cylindrical gas discharge section
is difficult to subject to winding and thus difficult to reinforce” and
“[t]herefore, the dome section and the cylindrical gas discharge section are
generally increased in thickness as compared with a cylindrical middle
section of the tank.” Page 1, paras. [0004] – [0005]. Sakaguchi discloses a
reinforcing member (reinforcing collar 10) fitted integrally on the exterior of
the tank 1 between the cylindrical gas discharge section 5 and the dome
section 4 to increase the effective thickness of these sections of the tank
thereby obtaining sufficient strength in these sections while maintaining
light weight, and providing facilitated fabrication and reduced cost. Page 1,
paras. [0013] – [0015]; page 3, para. [0035]. Figures 1 and 3A of Sakaguchi
disclose an end-closed cylindrical blank 21 provided for flow forming, but
Appeal 2011-005264
Application 12/028,165

5
Sakaguchi also discloses that “the short hollow cylindrical blank 21 may be
a hollow cylinder both ends of which are open. In this case, predetermined
regions respectively starting from both opening ends will be necked by
spinning.” Page 3, para. [0044].
We find that paragraph [0044] of Sakaguchi discloses that the bottom
end of the tank can be necked by spinning as shown in Figure 3C and
described in paragraph [0039]. This portion of Sakaguchi does not mention
adding a reinforcing collar to the bottom end of the tank as shown in Figures
3D-3F and described in paragraphs [0040] – [0042]. Further, Sakaguchi’s
claim 4 is directed to a method of forming a tank that begins with a
cylindrical blank of metal that includes a gas discharge section with a fitted
reinforcing collar at only one end. Sakaguchi, claim 4. The Examiner’s
extrapolation of the disclosure in Sakaguchi to neck the bottom end of the
blank into a disclosure that the bottom end is then further processed as
shown in Figures 3D-3F is speculative. As such, we cannot find by a
preponderance of the evidence that Sakaguchi discloses a bottom metal end
cap as called for in claim 1.
The rejections before us are each based on a finding that Sakaguchi
discloses adding a reinforcing collar to the bottom end of the tank. Ans. 7
(“It therefore follows that both ends are processed according to FIGS. 3C-3F
. . . .”). For the reasons provided above, this finding is in error. As such, we
do not sustain any of the rejections of independent claim 1 or claims 2-4, 6,
7, and 9, which depend therefrom. We make no determination, however, as
to whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
Appeal 2011-005264
Application 12/028,165

6
the time of Appellant’s invention to add a reinforcing collar to a necked
bottom end of a tank, as such a rejection has not been presented to us by the
Examiner or briefed by Appellant in this appeal. See MPEP § 1213.02
(“Since the exercise of authority under 37 CFR 41.50(b) [to enter a new
ground of rejection] is discretionary, no inference should be drawn from a
failure to exercise that discretion.”).
CONCLUSION
Sakaguchi does not disclose “a bottom metal end cap” attached to the
bottom end of the metal tube as called for in claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4, 6, 7,
and 9.

REVERSED

nlk