Ex Parte Weddfelt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201311918704 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/918,704 10/17/2007 Kenneth Weddfelt AC-134 6440 7590 12/18/2013 Mark P. Stone Attorney at Law 400 Columbus Avenue Valhalla, NY 10595 EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KENNETH WEDDFELT, GORAN TUOMAS, and RISTO WISAKANTO ____________________ Appeal 2012-003206 Application 11/918,704 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-003206 Application 11/918,704 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kenneth Weddfelt et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23-36, 40, and 41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 23 is the sole independent claim and reads: 23. Method for producing impulses for a percussive tool including a chamber for receiving a liquid volume and an impulse piston which is arranged for transferring pressure pulses in the liquid volume into stress wave pulses in the tool, the steps of said method comprising periodically influencing liquid in the chamber for setting the liquid volume in resonance for forming at least one pressure antinode in the chamber. REJECTIONS Appellants request review of the following rejections: I. Claims 23-27, 29-34, 36, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Keskiniva (US 2006/0157259 A1; published Jul. 20, 2006). II. Claims 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keskiniva and Galle (US 3,405,770; issued Oct. 15, 1968). Appeal 2012-003206 Application 11/918,704 3 ANALYSIS Rejection I – Anticipation based on Keskiniva Claim 23 recites “periodically influencing liquid in the chamber for setting the liquid volume in resonance for forming at least one pressure antinode in the chamber.” Emphases added. The Examiner found that Keskiniva discloses periodically influencing liquid in the working chamber 8, which the Examiner considered as corresponding to “setting the liquid volume in resonance (vibration of large amplitude) for forming at least one pressure anti-node (lower chamber) in the chamber.” Ans. 4 (citing Keskiniva, paras. [0007] and [0009]; fig. 2). The Examiner stated “[w]hile Keskiniva’s invention has expressly shown pressure anti-node in the Figures of the drawing, Keskiniva’s invention as described in (para. 0028, 0029 and 0030) inherently includes the features and method steps claimed.” Id. at 5 (emphases added). The Examiner also found that Keskiniva discloses “forming at least one pressure anti-node (maximum peak amplitude) in the chamber (see graph in Figs. 4a and 4b, peak between 3 and 4).” Id. at 8-9. In contrast, Appellants contend that Keskiniva discloses liquid in the working chamber 8 that is not influenced periodically such that it is set in resonance. App. Br. 5. In particular, Appellants contend that Keskiniva discloses allowing a pressure fluid to flow suddenly from the energy charging space 4 into the working chamber 8, where the pressure fluid generates a pressure pulse and, consequently, a force that influences the transmission piston 9, and then discharging the pressure fluid from working chamber 8. Id. at 6 (referencing Keskiniva, para. [0020]). Appellants contend that even if this process were repeated “periodically,” “it will not set the liquid volume in the working chamber 8 in resonance, because vibrations Appeal 2012-003206 Application 11/918,704 4 of a specific resonant frequency are not generated in the working chamber 8 as a result of this periodic process.” Id. Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. Appellants’ Specification discloses that when the liquid in the chamber is excited at a resonance frequency, a standing wave forms.1 See Spec. 2, ll. 10-11. Figure 1 of Appellants’ application shows an impulse piston 4 arranged in a chamber 3. See Spec. 5, ll. 30-33. The Specification discloses: The chamber 3 is formed to its shape with a length 1 and a diameter d and is filled with a chosen liquid, whereby when the same liquid is periodically fed in through liquid inlet/outlets 10 from pumping devices 9, the liquid inside the chamber 3 will be put into a state of resonance. In particular in such a way that a pressure node will be present in the area of the inlets/outlets 10 and that a pressure antinode will be present in the area of the impulse piston 4 and acting thereon. See id. at 6, ll. 3-7 (emphases added). Figure 2 shows the pressure distribution in resonance of the liquid in the chamber 3, including a pressure node 11 formed at the impulse piston 4 and a pressure node 12 formed at the opposite end of the chamber 3. Id. at 6, ll. 20-27. An ordinary meaning of “anti-node” is “a region of maximum amplitude situated between adjacent nodes in a vibrating body.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003). This definition is consistent with the curve shown in Figure 2 and the disclosure in the Specification that “[t]he greatest pressure amplitude 1 An ordinary meaning of “resonance” is “a vibration of large amplitude in a mechanical or electrical system caused by a relatively small periodic stimulus of the same or nearly the same period as the natural vibration period of the system.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003). Appeal 2012-003206 Application 11/918,704 5 thus occurs in the pressure antinode 11 in the region of the impulse piston.” See Spec. 6, ll. 30-31. The Examiner acknowledged that Keskiniva does not expressly describe the term “resonance chamber.” Ans. 9. We note that Keskiniva also does not describe the claimed term “resonance.” As noted supra, the Examiner found that Keskiniva discloses “setting the liquid volume in resonance (vibration of a large amplitude).” Ans. 4. Accordingly, the Examiner determined that a “vibration of large amplitude” in the liquid volume of Keskiniva establishes a resonance condition. In contrast, Appellants contend that Keskiniva fails to disclose either the shape of the working chamber 8 (which they contend is crucial in order to achieve resonance) (App. Br. 6-7), or the equations applicable for setting a liquid volume in resonance in the claimed chamber (id. at 7-8). These equations define a dimension of the chamber for resonance (id. at 7) and the resonant frequencies of waves in the chamber (id. at 7-8). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not identify any disclosure in Keskiniva pertaining to recognition of these conditions for achieving resonance, and thus, did not provide adequate evidence to show that Keskiniva’s method for generating stress pulses in a tool necessarily generates vibrations of a resonant frequency in the working chamber 8, such that a liquid volume in the working chamber 8 is set in resonance. We note that Keskiniva also does not disclose the claimed term “anti- node.” Keskiniva discloses that Figures 4a and 4b show stress pulses generated by the embodiments of the impact device shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Keskiniva, para. [0029]. Hence, the “peak between 3 and 4” shown in Figures 4a and 4b is a peak of a stress pulse. Keskiniva discloses Appeal 2012-003206 Application 11/918,704 6 that “a stress pulse is generated in a drill rod or some other tool.” Id. at para. [0020] (emphasis added). Keskiniva does not disclose that the stress pulses shown in Figures 4a and 4b correspond to the pressure distribution in resonance of a liquid in the working chamber 8, as shown in Figure 2 of Appellants’ application. Appellants also contend that formation of a pressure anti-node also requires forming a pressure node, and the waveforms shown in Figures 4a and 4b of Keskiniva do not define either nodes or anti-nodes. Reply Br. 3. Appellants further contend that “[t]he ‘maximum peak’ of a waveform, without more, is not an anti-node.” Id. at 4. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not provide adequate evidence to establish that the “peak between 3 and 4” in Figures 4a and 4b of Keskiniva, even if it has “maximum peak amplitude,” is a “pressure antinode.” We do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 23, or its dependent claims 24-27, 29-34, 36, 40, and 41. Rejection II – Obviousness over Keskiniva and Galle The Examiner’s application of Galle for the rejection of claims 28 and 35 (Ans. 7) does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 23, as discussed supra. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 28 and 35. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23-36, 40, and 41 is REVERSED. REVERSED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation