2020000045 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2020)

Stephen Tongue et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 8, 2020

2020000045 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2020)

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. 15/334,005 10/25/2016 Stephen E. Tongue 94277US01[1510801.645US1] 1624 61654 7590 12/08/2020 Locke Lord LLP P.O. BOX 55874 BOSTON, MA 02205 EXAMINER SHAO, PHILLIP Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1776 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/08/2020 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): patent@lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN E. TONGUE, JONATHAN RHEAUME, and HARALAMBOS CORDATOS Appeal 2020-000045 Application 15/334,005 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, 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 10–17. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Goodrich Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000045 Application 15/334,005 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for removing oxygen from fuel. Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 10. A method for removing oxygen from fuel, comprising: applying heat to fuel upstream of an accumulator to raise the temperature of the fuel to cause deposits to form on the accumulator. Appeal Br. 14. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Smith1 US 4,498,525 Feb. 12, 1985 Wilmot, jr. US 6,415,595 B1 July 9, 2002 Huang US 2009/0152172 A1 June 18, 2009 Johnson US 2015/0314229 A1 Nov. 5, 2015 Smith2 US 2015/0375868 A1 Dec. 31, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson. Final Act. 4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Smith1. Final Act. 6. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Wilmot. Final Act. 7. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Huang. Final Act. 7. Appeal 2020-000045 Application 15/334,005 3 Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Smith2. Final Act. 8. OPINION The dispositive issue on appeal is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Johnson’s fuel deoxygenation system 104, or any part downstream of a heat exchanger, is an accumulator within the meaning of claim 10? Appellant has identified such an error. The Examiner’s rejections all hinge on the finding that any part residing after a heater in Johnson’s fuel deoxygenation system is an accumulator within the meaning of claim 10. Specifically, the Examiner points to Johnson’s fuel deoxygenation system 104. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that “the accumulator would be 104 or any part after the heat exchanger the heated fuel passes through.” Final Act. 3. In the Answer, the Examiner interprets Johnson’s deoxygenation system “as to include an accumulator in it or to read as the accumulator.” Ans. 10–11. According to the Examiner, “[t]here is nothing in claim 10 regarding what the accumulator is actually doing or how it is physically different than that of the 104 or any part after the heat exchanger.” Appellant contends that Johnson’s deoxygenation system 104 is not accumulator, nor does it contain an accumulator. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant points out that deoxygenation system 104 does not function to accumulate anything, instead it functions to mix fuel with an inert gas and supply the deoxygenated fuel. Id. As evidence that a deoxygenation system is different from an accumulator, Appellant points to the teaching in Johnson of an accumulator 1304, shown in Figure 13. Id. Appeal 2020-000045 Application 15/334,005 4 We agree with Appellant that the prior art indicates that accumulators were understood to be different in structure from other devices in fuel systems and, specifically, different from deoxygenation systems. Johnson uses accumulator 1304 after pump 1302 in the purge gas recirculation line to control system stability. Johnson ¶ 36. Figure 13 depicts accumulator 1304 as a tank or reservoir, a different symbol than that used to depict deoxygenation system 1004. Johnson Fig. 13. The definition of an accumulator is “[a] device that accumulates or stores something” and, in mechanical engineering, an accumulator is understood to be “[a]ny device used in hydraulic systems to store fluid under pressure in a container.” Accumulator. (1992). In C. G. Morris (Ed.), Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (4th ed.). Elsevier Science & Technology. Credo Reference: https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/apdst/ accumulator/0?institutionId=743. In aviation, an accumulator is understood to be, “[i]n some gas-turbine engines, a device that stores fuel and releases it under pressure when needed, as when starting the engine. Id. Appellant’s invention is in the field of aviation. Spec. 1. As Appellant does not define “accumulator” in the Specification, the ordinary and accustomed meaning in the field of aviation and fuel storage systems controls. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”); Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“it is the use of the words in the context of the written description and customarily by those of skill in the relevant art that accurately reflects both the ‘ordinary’ and ‘customary’ meaning of the terms in the claims.”). Appeal 2020-000045 Application 15/334,005 5 The Examiner has not provided the necessary evidence or technical reasoning to establish that Johnson’s deoxygenation system 104, or any other part of Johnson’s apparatus downstream of a heater, is an “accumulator” as that word is used in claim 10. Because all the rejections are predicated on the erroneous claim interpretation and finding, we reverse all the rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–17 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 10, 11 102(a)(1) Johnson 10, 11 12 103 Johnson, Smith1 12 13, 14 103 Johnson, Wilmot 13, 14 15 103 Johnson, Huang 15 16, 17 103 Johnson, Smith2 16, 17 Overall Outcome 10–17 REVERSED