Ex Parte Waugh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2018

13769705 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2018)

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.
13/769,705 02/18/2013 Gregory M. Waugh 12-1443-US-NP 6451
63759 7590 01/08/2018
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DUNWOODY, AARON M
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2018 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY M. WAUGH
Appeal 2016-003705
Application 13/769,705
Technology Center 3600
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—4, 10—13, and 15—17.3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed July 30, 2015), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 22,
2016), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Feb. 18, 2013), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 23, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 2, 2015).
2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is “The Boeing
Company of Chicago, Illinois.” Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 5—9 and 14 are pending with no outstanding rejection.
Appeal 2016-003705
Application 13/769,705
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “relates generally to fittings and, in
particular, to bulkhead fittings. Still more particularly, the present disclosure
relates to a bulkhead fitting capable of providing an electrically isolated
pathway for transporting fluid across a structural boundary within an aerial
platform.” Spec. 11.
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
(Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.)) is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below (bracketing added for reference):
1. An apparatus comprising:
[(a)] a first component attached to a first fluid line and a
first side of a structure;
[(b)] a second component attached to a second fluid line
and a second side of the structure; and
[(c)] an isolator located between the first component and
the second component within an opening in the structure,
[(d)] wherein the first component, the second component,
and the isolator form a channel that connects a first channel
through the first fluid line to a second channel in the second fluid
line; and
[(e)] wherein the isolator electrically separates the first
fluid line and the second fluid line.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1—4, 10-13, and 15—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated Harbeke (US 4,823,527, iss. Apr. 25, 1989).4
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of
claim 5 as anticipated by Harbeke and of claims 1—17 as anticipated by
Lampson (US 6,643,676). Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-003705
Application 13/769,705
ANALYSIS
The Appellant contends that the rejection of independent claims 1
and 16 is in error because Harbeke does not disclose the “feature of[]
‘wherein the isolator electrically separates the first fluid line and the second
fluid line,’” as recited in limitation (e) of claim 1 and similarly recited in
claim 16. Appeal Br. 7. After careful consideration and review of the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning (see Ans. 2—3; Final Act. 2), we agree
that the Examiner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that
Harbeke discloses this limitation.
The Examiner and the Appellant appear to agree that the limitation
requires that the isolator effects some change in an electrical property
between the first and second fluid lines. See Ans. 3; Appeal Br. 9. The
Examiner finds that Harbeke discloses that plastic pipe stem 48 meets the
claimed isolator because plastic is known to one of ordinary skill in the art
as an electrical isolator, and, thus, stem 48 electrically isolates the first and
second fluid lines. See Ans. 3. However, Harbeke is silent as to the
electrical properties of stem 48 and to the materials of pipe couplings 34 and
34a, i.e., the first and second components, and fluid lines 32, 36, and 78. As
such, it is not apparent whether plastic stem 48 is of a different material than
couplings 34 and 34a such that the plastic effects a change in an electrical
property between the first and second fluid lines, as asserted by the
Examiner (see id.), or whether plastic stem 48 is of the same material as
couplings 34 and 34a such that the plastic does not effect a change, as
asserted by the Appellant (see Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2). Because the
Examiner’s finding is not adequately supported, the Examiner has not shown
3
Appeal 2016-003705
Application 13/769,705
that Harbeke discloses that isolator stem 48 electrically separates the first
and second fluid lines.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 16 and dependent claims 2—4, 10-13, 15, and 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 10—13, and 15—17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4