2019003672 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2021)

Martin Christ Gefriertrocknungsanlagen GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 9, 2021

2019003672 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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. 15/299,803 10/21/2016 Martin Christ 051848-1021 2490 24504 7590 08/09/2021 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP 3200 WINDY HILL ROAD, SE SUITE 1600E ATLANTA, GA 30339 EXAMINER NGUYEN, BAO D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/09/2021 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): docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com ozzie.liggins@tkhr.com uspatents@tkhr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARTIN CHRIST ____________ Appeal 2019-003672 Application 15/299,803 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–28, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 1, 3; Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Martin Christ Gefriertrocknungsanlagen, GmbH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003672 Application 15/299,803 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a freeze-drying apparatus with a loading and unloading device. See, e.g., Spec. p. 1, l. 8 – p. 2, l. 6. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is the sole independent claim appealed and is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A freeze-drying apparatus, comprising: a carriage comprising a battery and a battery-powered electrical drive unit, wherein the carriage is configured to travel along guides to push drying receptacles; a drying chamber accommodated inside a housing, the drying chamber comprising a first set of guides that is configured to support the carriage, and an arrangement of product platforms disposed so as to be displaceable vertically in a frame and designed to support the drying receptacles; a loading and unloading device for the drying receptacles, the loading and unloading device comprising a second set of guides that is configured to support the carriage; and wherein the carriage, which comprises the battery and the battery-powered electrical drive unit, travels into and out of the drying chamber along the first set of guides of the drying chamber and the second set of guides of the loading and unloading device. Appeal 2019-003672 Application 15/299,803 3 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Webb US 5,014,583 May 14, 1991 Chen US 2001/0045785 A1 Nov. 29, 2001 Covert US 2006/0016094 A1 Jan. 26, 2006 Wagner US 2009/0025251 A1 Jan. 29, 2009 Kluetsch US 2010/0070108 A1 Mar. 18, 2010 Van Veen US 2012/0159803 A1 June 28, 2012 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 15, 19–23, and 26–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen, Kluetsch, and Covert. Final Act. 10–21. II. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8–12, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, and Chen. Id. at 22–26. III. Claims 14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, and Webb. Id. at 26–30. IV. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, and Wagner. Id. at 30–31. Appeal 2019-003672 Application 15/299,803 4 ANALYSIS All the pending claims include the emphasized recitations of independent claim 1 as noted above. In particular, these limitations are directed to a travelling carriage that is configured to push drying receptacles into and out of a drying chamber, where the carriage includes a battery and a battery-powered electrical drive unit, and where the same carriage also travels into and out of the drying chamber. In all the rejections on appeal, the Examiner relies on a combination of teachings from Van Veen, Kluetsch, and Covert. See Final Act. 10–31. Specifically, the Examiner finds—and Appellant does not dispute—that Van Veen discloses a freeze-drying apparatus with a loading and unloading device that is similar in many respects to that claimed. Id. at 14–15. But the Examiner acknowledges that Van Veen does not disclose that its carriage, which travels into and out of the drying chamber, includes a battery and a battery-powered electrical drive unit, as required by the claim. Id. at 15. For this limitation, the Examiner turns to Kluetsch for disclosing lifting carriage 16 that includes battery 20 and a battery-powered electrical drive unit in the form of servomotors for the drive motor, the steering means, and the lifting means of lifting carriage 16. Id. (citing Kluetsch, Fig. 1, ¶ 23). In combining Kluetsch’s lifting carriage 16 with Van Veen’s freeze- drying apparatus with a loading and unloading device, the Examiner expressly articulates that it would have been obvious “to modify the freeze- drying apparatus of Van Veen with the carriage comprising a battery and a battery-powered electrical drive unit, as taught by Kluetsch, for providing a greater flexibility of maintaining the loading and unloading device at a different area or room other than the clean room[,] which results in Appeal 2019-003672 Application 15/299,803 5 preventing the clean room from being contaminated.” Id. at 15–16 (emphasis added). The Examiner reiterates this combination, and the reasoning provided for the combination, in the Answer. See Ans. 6, 9–10. It is the incorporation of this teaching from Kluetsch, as articulated by the Examiner, with which Appellant takes issue. See Appeal Br. 3–8; Reply Br. 3–6. In particular, Appellant explains that the Examiner’s combination does not result in the claimed apparatus because Kluetsch’s lifting carriage 16 only moves one of multiple supporting frames (such as supporting frame 18 of transfer means 10) to various loading and unloading stations 14, 16 or to service area 18 (the erroneous duplicate use of reference number 18 is original to Kluetsch). Appeal Br. 4 (citing Kluetsch ¶ 27); see id. at 3–5; see also Kluetsch, Figs. 1, 3. This operation of Kluetsch’s lifting carriage 16 accords with the Examiner’s combination for providing flexibility by moving the loading and unloading device (Kluetsch’s transfer means 10) to different areas or rooms. See Final Act. 15–16. But, as Appellant further explains, this operation is unrelated to movement of the travelling carriage of the claimed invention (or the travelling carriage of Van Veen), which must travel into and out of the drying chamber from the loading and unloading device. See Appeal Br. 3–5; Reply Br. 4–5. We agree with Appellant. Stated another way, although the Examiner’s combination may provide for “greater flexibility of maintaining the loading and unloading device at a different area or room other than the clean room,” thereby “preventing the clean room from being contaminated,” this combination as articulated relates to Van Veen’s transport vehicle 30 with undercarriage 31 (to provide the stated benefit), but does not relate to any modification of Appeal 2019-003672 Application 15/299,803 6 Van Veen’s travelling carriage (identified as a combination of drive housing 63 and pulling shovel 80). Final Act. 14–16. In other words, the Examiner’s stated combination of teachings does not arrive at the apparatus recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner proposes no other combination. Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met the burden of establishing a proper prima facie case of obviousness. On this basis, we do not sustain the rejections. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 15, 19–23, and 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen, Kluetsch, and Covert. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 4, 7, 8–12, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, and Chen. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, and Webb. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, and Wagner. Appeal 2019-003672 Application 15/299,803 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 15, 19–23, 26–28 103 Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 15, 19–23, 26–28 3, 4, 7, 8–12, 24, 25 103 Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, Chen 3, 4, 7, 8–12, 24, 25 14, 16, 18 103 Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, Webb 14, 16, 18 17 103 Van Veen, Kluetsch, Covert, Wagner 17 Overall Outcome 1–28 REVERSED