J.M. Canty, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 10, 2021

2020003760 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2021)

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.
15/910,033 03/02/2018 Thomas Canty 816266 9556
95683 7590 11/10/2021
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2021 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS CANTY, MICHAEL RIZZO, MEREDITH CANTY,
COLLEEN KELLEY, and JUSTIN HALBACH

___________

Appeal 2020-003760
Application 15/910,033
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-003760
Application 15/910,033

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 and 14–39. Claim 13 has been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a monitoring system for monitoring a
process, including a housing with a viewing panel having a view port, an
emitter that generates light and illuminates an observation zone of the
process, a detector within the housing configured to detect light entering the
housing through the view port and, and a thermal regulation system
configured to generate heat in the vicinity of the viewing panel. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A monitoring system for monitoring a process,
comprising:
a housing including a viewing panel, the viewing panel
including a view port;
an emitter configured to generate light and illuminate an
observation zone of the process;
a detector disposed within the housing, the detector
configured to detect light entering the housing through the view
port and create a plurality of images of the process in the
observation zone; and

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as J.M.
Canty, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-003760
Application 15/910,033

3
a thermal regulation system configured to generate heat
in the vicinity of the viewing panel of the housing so as to
increase the temperature of at least the view port above ambient
temperature, wherein the thermal regulation system is
configured to heat a section of the housing comprising the
viewing panel while simultaneously cooling another section of
the housing opposite the viewing panel.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Canty et al. US 6,771,366 B2 Aug. 3, 2004
Riechers US 2013/0039810 A1 Feb. 14, 2013
Kim US 2017/0003041 A1 Jan. 5, 2017
Jaques et al. US 2017/0349874 A1 Dec. 7, 2017
Enalejew DE 4028871 A1 Mar. 19, 1992

REJECTIONS
A. Claims 1–12, 17–20, 26–29, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over to Riechers, Canty, and Kim.
B. Claims 14, 21–25, 30, 33, and 35–38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over to Riechers, Canty, Kim, and
Jaques.
C. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over to Riechers, Canty, Kim, and Enalejew.
D. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over to Riechers, Canty, Kim, and Coetzee.
E. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Riechers in view of Canty, Kim, Jaques, and Coetzee.

Appeal 2020-003760
Application 15/910,033

4
OPINION
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 5–6) that the Examiner improperly combined Riechers, Canty, and
Kim.
The Examiner found that bioreactor vessel 10 of Riechers, having
window 38 coupled to detection unit 52, corresponds to the limitation “a
housing including a viewing panel, the viewing panel including a view port.”
(Final Act. 2.) The Examiner further found that Kim’s thermoelectric
device 40 corresponds to the limitation “wherein the thermal regulation
system is configured to heat a section of the housing comprising the viewing
panel while simultaneously cooling another section of the housing opposite
the viewing panel.” (Id. at 4.) The Examiner concluded that “it would have
been obvious . . . to modify Riechers’s system . . . with Kim’s system” in
order “to provide a device which is configured to maintain a temperature of
cooling water within a desirable range and minimize power consumption
using condensation of ambient air passing above the cooling water.” (Id.;
see also Ans. 25.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning for combining Riechers and Kim.
Riechers relates “to a bioreactor vessel having an optical foam
sensor.” (¶ 2.) Figure 1 of Riechers illustrates bioreactor vessel 10 (¶ 24),
which includes window 38 that is “[s]ecurely connected to the wall of the
vessel 10” (¶ 27), electric heating wires on sealing plate 60 (¶ 33), and
“window (38) . . . coupled to an illumination and detection unit (52)”
(Abstract). Moreover, Riechers explains that “control unit 54 can
distinguish whether foam is situated in front of the window 38 or not” (¶ 31)
and deploy antifoaming agents (AFAs) if necessary (¶ 25; see also Abstract.)
Appeal 2020-003760
Application 15/910,033

5
Kim, as a secondary reference, relates to a wall-mounted smart
dehumidifier that “is configured to maintain a temperature of cooling water
within a desirable range and minimize power consumption using
condensation of ambient air passing above the cooling water.” (¶ 2.) Kim’s
Figure 4 illustrates internal structure of a housing of a dehumidifier (¶ 42),
which includes “thermoelectric device 40 [to] dissipate heat dissipation at a
first side device thereof and absorb heat at a second side (e.g., an opposite
side of the first side) thereof by the Peltier effect, e.g., when supplied with
electric power.” (¶ 50).
Although the Examiner proposes to modify Reichers’ bioreactor
vessel 10 to incorporate Kim’s thermoelectric device 40 for a dehumidifier,
the Examiner has not provided an articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning as to how and why one of ordinary skill in the art would
combine Riechers with Kim. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). In particular, the Examiner merely repeats Kim’s description of
itself as being directed to a “smart dehumidifier . . . configured to maintain a
temperature of cooling water within a desirable range and minimize power
consumption using condensation of ambient air passing above the cooling
water,” instead of articulating one of the rationales provided in KSR to
support a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–421.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that:
Appeal 2020-003760
Application 15/910,033

6
[T]here is no rational connection between Kim’s teaching of a
heat exchanger in a dehumidifier on the one hand and heating a
view panel and cooling a section opposite the viewing panel on
the other. This connection to the claim as a whole cannot be
ignored when articulating an obviousness rejection. . . . This
rationale [from paragraph 2 of Kim] appears entirely
disconnected with any rational reason to combine the references
because there is no issue with cooling water or ambient air
identified the other references.
(Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5–6.)
Thus, the Examiner has improperly combined Riechers, Canty, and
Kim to reject independent claims 1 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–12, 17–20, 26–29,
31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In addition, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 14–16, 21–25,
30 and 33–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of Riechers,
Canty, Kim, Jaques, Enalejew, and Coetzee for the same reasons discussed
previously with respect to the rejection of claims 1–12, 17–20, 26–29, 31,
and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Riechers, Canty, and Kim.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12 and 14–39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

Appeal 2020-003760
Application 15/910,033

7
DECISION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 17–
20, 26–29,
31, 32
103 Riechers, Canty,
Kim
1–12, 17–
20, 26–29,
31, 32
14, 21–25,
30, 33, 35–
38
103 Riechers, Canty,
Kim, Jaques
14, 21–25,
30, 33, 35–
38
15, 16 103 Riechers, Canty,
Kim, Enalejew
15, 16
34 103 Riechers, Canty,
Kim, Coetzee
34
39 103 Canty, Kim,
Jaques, Coetzee
39
Overall
Outcome
1–12, 14–
39

REVERSED