CAMFIL USA, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2020

2020000559 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 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.
14/869,249 09/29/2015 Keith G. WOOLARD CMFL/115US 9425
69826 7590 11/04/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - CAMFIL
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
KOLB, NATHANIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2020 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):
KTABOADA@PATTERSONSHERIDAN.COM
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEITH G. WOOLARD
____________

Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LILAN REN, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Camfil USA, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed June 14, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 3.
2 Final Office Action entered November 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims a containment system (independent claims 1 and
17), a downstream test section access door (independent claim 7), and a
method for testing a filter disposed in a containment system (independent
claim 12). Appeal Br. 7–8. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows:
1. A containment system comprising:
a housing configured to hold a filter in a position that
separates an upstream section from a downstream test section,
the housing having a filter access port for replacing a filter
disposed in the housing, the housing having a downstream test
section access port formed in the housing communicating with
the downstream test section;
a filter access door configured to selectively seal the filter
access port;
a downstream test section access door configured to
selectively seal the downstream test section access port;
a displacement assembly coupled to the downstream test
section access door; and
a plurality of probes coupled to the displacement
assembly and disposed in the downstream test section of the
housing while the downstream test section access port is sealed
by the downstream test section access door, wherein the
displacement assembly is operable to move the probes relative
to the test section access door.

Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis and spacing added).
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Morse et al. (US 2007/0044438 Al, published
March 1, 2007) in view of LaBorde (US 6,571,641 Bl, issued June 3, 2003)
in the Examiner’s Answer entered September 9, 2019 (“Ans.”).

Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

3
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s timely contentions,3 we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each issue the Appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner
had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice
to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).
Appellant presents arguments directed to subject matter common to
independent claims 1, 7, and 12. Appeal Br. 10–14.4 We, therefore, select

3 We do not consider any new argument Appellant raises for the first time in
the Reply Brief that Appellant could have raised in the Appeal Brief. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (arguments raised for the
first time in the Reply Brief that could have been raised in the Appeal Brief
will not be considered by the Board unless good cause is shown).
4 Although Appellant also asserts that “Morse in view of LaBorde does not
teach or suggest” particular subject matter recited in each of claims 1, 7, 12,
and 17 (Appeal Br. 14), this conclusory statement does not constitute a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of these claims. In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art. Because Lovin
did not provide such arguments, the Board did not err in refusing to
separately address claims 2–15, 17–24, and 31–34.”).
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

4
claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal as to claims 1–19 based on
claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The “Background of the Invention” section of Morse explains that
containment systems are used in laboratories to test toxic and virulent
chemicals, viruses, and organisms. Morse ¶ 9. Morse discloses containment
system 100 comprising housing 102 containing filter 104 and autoscan
mechanism 130 (displacement assembly), used to test filter 104 for leaks.
Morse ¶¶ 11, 41; Fig. 5. Morse discloses that autoscan mechanism 130
(displacement assembly) includes at least one probe 142 and actuator 144.
Morse ¶ 42; Fig. 5. Morse discloses that housing 102 comprises filter access
port 522 sealingly closed by door 520 (filter access door). Morse ¶ 48; Fig.
5.
Morse discloses alternate containment system 700 comprising a
housing containing filter 104, first filter access port 522 closed by door 520
(filter access door), and second access port 702 closed by a second door
(downstream test section access door). Morse ¶ 52; Fig. 7. Morse discloses
that second access port 702 accommodates manual testing of filter 104
“utilizing conventional scanning practices” that involve accessing the
interior of the housing through a bag mounted on bag ring 530 of second
access port 702. Morse ¶¶ 49, 52; Figs. 5 and 7.
The Examiner finds that Morse does not disclose coupling autoscan
mechanism 130 (displacement assembly) to the second door (downstream
test section access door) in Morse’s alternative containment system 700, and
the Examiner relies on LaBorde for suggesting such a modification. Final
Act. 3.

Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

5
LaBorde discloses sensor mount assembly 20 for monitoring
properties of a free flowing process stream, and LaBorde indicates that
sensor mount assembly 20 can be installed in new or pre-existing ductwork
of a processing installation. LaBorde col. 1, ll. 43–46; col. 2, ll. 43–45; Fig.
2. LaBorde discloses that sensor mount assembly 20 comprises sensor
elements 38, 40 disposed inside housing 25, which includes front wall 26,
back wall 28, and side walls 29, 30. LaBorde col. 2, ll. 47–52; col. 3, ll. 1–
9; Fig. 2. LaBorde discloses that front wall 26 has dimensions larger than
corresponding dimensions of mounting opening 22 formed in side wall 24 of
duct 21. LaBorde col. 2, ll. 54–57; Fig. 2. LaBorde discloses overlapping
the edges of front wall 26 with the edges of opening 22 on duct wall 24, and
securing the overlapping edges together using fasteners, such as screws 32.
LaBorde col. 2, ll. 56–58; Fig. 2. The Examiner finds that LaBorde’s front
wall 26 corresponds to a door, and finds that LaBorde thus “teach[es] that it
is known to have a complex sensor assembly (20 in FIG. 2) mounted to a
door (26 in FIG. 3) that is installed inside a duct (21).” Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that this disclosures in LaBorde of mounting a
sensor assembly to a door to enable the sensor assembly to be installed in
new or pre-existing ductwork would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to attach Morse’s autoscan mechanism 130 (displacement assembly)
including probes 142 to the second door (downstream test section access
door) in Morse’s containment system 700, resulting in autoscan mechanism
130 (displacement assembly) being operable to move probes 142 relative to
the second door (downstream test section access door). Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that “Morse does not teach or suggest ‘a
displacement assembly coupled to the downstream test section access door’
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

6
as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that the
embodiment of Morse’s containment system illustrated in Figure 5 does not
include a downstream test section access door because such a door “is made
unnecessary by the autoscan mechanism 130,” whereas the embodiment
illustrated in Morse’s Figure 7 includes “access port 702 with a bag ring 704
to accommodate manual testing of the filter 104 utilizing conventional
scanning practices.” Appeal Br. 10–11.
Appellant’s arguments are improperly based on Morse alone,
however, and do not take into consideration the combined disclosures of
Morse and LaBorde. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
As discussed above, the Examiner acknowledges that Morse does not
disclose coupling autoscan mechanism 130 (displacement assembly) to the
second door (downstream test section access door) in Morse’s alternative
containment system 700, and the Examiner relies on LaBorde for suggesting
such a modification to Morse’s alternative containment system 700
(discussed more fully below). Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that “LaBorde does not teach a door or a sensor
mounted to a door.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that LaBorde’s “front
wall 26 is actually part of the sample housing 25 and not a door of the duct
21.” Id. Appellant argues that “wall 26 is a mounting flange of the sensor
mount assembly 20 and not a door of a containment housing.” Id.
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

7
Appellant argues that “the Examiner is clearly not using the plain meaning
of the claim element ‘door’ and as such, the Examiners [sic] interpretation is
unreasonable [sic] broad.” Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant argues that
LaBorde, therefore, “cannot suggest a modification to Morse for suggesting
‘a displacement assembly coupled to the downstream test section access
door’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, for reasons that follow.
Claim 1 recites a containment system that comprises, in part, a
housing having a downstream test section access port formed in the housing,
a downstream test section access door configured to selectively seal the
downstream test section access port, and a displacement assembly coupled to
the downstream test section access door. We begin our analysis by
interpreting “access door” as recited in claim 1. During prosecution of
patent applications, “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the
specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise
apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
We do not find an explicit definition of “access door” in Appellant’s
Specification. The Specification, however, describes door assembly 240
including door 203 that closes downstream test section access port 258 of
containment system 200. Spec. ¶ 30; Fig. 3. The Specification indicates
that door 203 may be removably secured to containment system 200 by “any
suitable mechanism,” and describes exemplary locking mechanism 318 that
includes threaded stud 320 and star nut 324. Id. The Specification explains
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

8
that “door assembly 240 is secured over the downstream test section access
port 258 of the containment system when the locking mechanism 318 is
oriented in a locking position 321 which engages the threaded stud 320 with
the door assembly 240, allowing the star nut 324 to be turned to a position
that compresses the sealing member 229 sealing the door 203 over the port
258.” Id. The Specification further explains that “door assembly 240 may
be removed by orienting the locking mechanism 318 into an open position
328 (shown in phantom [in Figure 3]) by loosening the star nut 324 to allow
the threaded stud 320 to be moved clear of the door 203, thus allowing the
door 203 to be move clear of the port 258.” Id.
The Specification thus indicates that an “access door” configured to
selectively seal a downstream test section access port (opening)
encompasses a structure that covers the access port (opening) and seals the
port when a locking mechanism coupled to the structure, such as a threaded
stud and nut, is engaged. Consistent with this description of “access door”
in Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner determines that a “door” as
recited in claim 1 is a “movable structure used to close off an entrance.”
Final Act. 11 (citing The American Heritage Dictionary (accessed
November 13, 2018),
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=door).
Like door assembly 240 described in Appellant’s Specification,
LaBorde’s Figure 2 shows that front wall 26 covers an opening (or access
port) in housing 25, and illustrates a pair of screws 32 (locking mechanism)
that seal the opening by fastening edges of front wall 26 to overlapping
edges of wall 24 in duct 21. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, LaBorde’s
front wall 26 thus corresponds to an “access door” configured to selectively
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

9
seal an access port as described in Appellant’s Specification, and according
to the plain meaning of a “door” cited by the Examiner, because front wall
26 closes off an entrance to (or access port in) housing 25, seals the entrance
or access port when screws 32 (locking mechanism) are engaged, and can be
moved by removing screws 32.
As for Appellant’s argument that the relied-upon disclosures of
LaBorde would not have suggested modifying Morse’s containment system
to couple autoscan mechanism 130 (displacement assembly) to an access
door, Morse discloses that each access door in a containment system is a
potential leak point and “represents a source for a potential catastrophic
biohazard release that could expose technicians and/or the surrounding
environment.” Morse ¶ 9. Morse discloses that integrating an autoscan
mechanism inside the housing of containment system “allows filters,
disposed in the containment system, to be tested without opening and
exposing technicians to the downstream interior side of the filter housing,”
and “enable[s] testing of a filter in its installed location (e.g., operational
location at the final users site, not bench testing) without opening the
housing and exposing the area downstream of the filter to the risk of
contamination.” Morse ¶¶ 33, 53.
As discussed above, Morse discloses that alternate containment
system 700 includes second access port 702 to accommodate manual testing
of filter 104 by a technician accessing the interior of the housing through a
bag mounted on bag ring 704 of second access port 702. In view of Morse’s
disclosures discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that such a process could potentially expose the technician to
biohazardous materials inside the housing, and could also potentially
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

10
contaminate the filter. LaBorde’s disclosure of mounting a sensor assembly
to a door to enable the sensor assembly to be installed in new or pre-existing
ductwork reasonably would have led one of ordinary skill in the art seeking
to avoid potential exposure and contamination caused by manually testing
filter 104 in Morse’s alternate containment system 700 to attach Morse’s
autoscan mechanism 130 (displacement assembly) to the second door
(downstream test section access door) in Morse’s containment system 700,
as disclosed in LaBorde, to eliminate the need for a technician to access the
interior of the housing in order to test filter 104.
Appellant argues that “LaBorde teaches sensors for animal feed and
does not disclose air filters or containment housing.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant argues that “LaBorde is not concerned with filter leak testing nor
does LaBorde disclose a downstream test section access door.” Id.
Appellant argues that “one skilled in the art of air filtration would not
consult a sensor in an animal feed channel for obtaining designs critical for
air filtration,” and, therefore, “LaBorde is non-analogous to the instant
application.” Appeal Br. 13–14.
A reference is analogous art if it “is either in the field of the
applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which
the inventor was concerned . . . based on the judgment of a person having
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–87 (Fed. Cir.
2006). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because
of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to
an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d
656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “In other words, ‘familiar items may have
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

11
obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007)).
We point out initially that LaBorde discloses that its “invention
pertains to on-line monitoring of one or more physical properties of a free
flowing product such as a granular or particulate material,” and “[a]n
example of a process where on-line monitoring is employed is in the
manufacture of animal feed.” LaBorde col. 1, ll. 9–14. LaBorde further
discloses that “[t]he invention relates to an on-line sensor mount assembly
for monitoring material properties of a free flowing process stream,” which
“can readily be installed in new or pre-existent ductwork of a processing
installation.” LaBorde col. 1, ll. 43–46. LaBorde’s disclosures, therefore,
are not limited to sensors in an animal feed channel as Appellant’s
arguments imply, but, rather, are more broadly directed to a sensor mount
assembly for monitoring properties of a free flowing process stream that can
be installed in new or pre-existing ductwork.
As the Examiner explains in the Answer, even if LaBorde is not in the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which the inventor was concerned, as set forth in Appellant’s
Specification. Ans. 5–6. More specifically, the Specification indicates that
conventional containment systems include a housing having a test section
access door that may be removed to allow testing of a filter disposed within
the housing for leaks. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 6; Fig. 1. The Specification explains that
following removal of the downstream test section access door, a technician
may manually scan the filter with a probe through a bio-isolation bag having
integral gloves that is coupled to the containment system housing. Spec.
¶¶ 6, 7; Fig. 1. The Specification indicates, however, that each time a
Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

12
technician opens the downstream test section access door to test the filter for
leaks, the technician risks exposure to potential biohazards within the
housing. Spec. ¶ 8. The Specification indicates that, therefore, “there is a
need for an improved method of scanning the filter of a containment system
without risk of exposure to contaminants,” but “upgrading from a manual
bag with gloves to an automated integrated scanning probe permanently
disposed in the housing may require replacement of the entire containment
system.” Spec. ¶¶ 8, 9 (reference numerals omitted).
LaBorde’s disclosure of retrofitting a sensor assembly to existing
ductwork by mounting the assembly on a housing door logically would have
commended itself to one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to address this
problem set forth in Appellant’s Specification. The ordinarily skilled artisan
would have recognized that the arrangement disclosed in LaBorde could be
used to retrofit an existing containment system with a sensor/scanning
assembly by mounting the assembly on a door of the system’s housing,
allowing a filter in the containment system to be tested with the
sensor/scanner without opening the housing door. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417
(“[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). Contrary to Appellant’s
argument, LaBorde, therefore, is analogous art.
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morse in view of LaBorde.

Appeal 2020-000559
Application 14/869,249

13
CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19 103 Morse, LaBorde 1–19

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED