Ex Parte Ancliffe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 2017

13821271 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017)

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. 13/821,271 09/25/2013 Daniel Mark Ancliffe P10B413 2429 20411 7590 12/21/2017 The Linde Group 200 Somerset Corporate Blvd. Suite 7000 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2017 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 DANIEL MARK ANCLIFFE and WAYNE DREW Appeal 2017-003801 Application 13/821,271 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed March 7, 2013 (“Spec.”); the Non-Final Action mailed April 22, 2015 (“Non-Final Act.”); the Appeal Br. filed April 6, 2016 (“Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 23, 2016 (“Ans.”). Appellants did not file a Reply Brief. 2 Appellants identify the inventors and Linde AG as the real parties in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-003801 Application 13/821,271 The claims are directed to methods for protecting gas cylinders with plastic sleeves. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of protecting a gas cylinder with a plastics sleeve, comprising the steps of placing a plastics sleeve over a complementary inflatable former of elastomeric material, inflating the former so as to reversibly stretch the plastics sleeve radially, deflating the former, removing the sleeve from the former, and fitting the stretched plastics sleeve over the gas cylinder before the plastics sleeve shrinks. Br. 23 (Claims App’x). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Martin (“Martin ’730”) US 3,033,730 May 8, 1962 Martin (“Martin ’598”) US 3,156,598 Nov. 10, 1964 Evans et al. (“Evans”) US 4,070,746 Jan. 31, 1978 Peigneur et al. US 4,803,104 Feb. 7, 1989 (“Peigneur”) Conn US 4,964,930 Oct. 23, 1990 Nelson et al. (“Nelson”) US 5,071,506 Dec. 10, 1991 Greuel, Jr. et al. US 5,660,660 Aug. 26, 1997 (“Greuel”) Johnson US 5,775,019 July 7, 1998 Culp et al. (“Culp”) US 5,922,158 July 13, 1999 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains, and Appellants seek review of, the following rejections: (1) claims 1-8 and 11 over Conn in view of Evans and any one of Martin ’598, Martin ’730, or Nelson; (2) claim 9 over Conn in view of Evans and any one of Martin 98, Martin ’730, or Nelson, and further 2 Appeal 2017-003801 Application 13/821,271 in view of either Greuel or Peigneur; and (3) claim 10 over Conn in view of Evans and any one of Martin ’598, Martin ’730, or Nelson, and further in view of either Culp or Johnson. Non-Final Act. 2, 5, and 6;3 Br. 9. OPINION Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Br. 23-24 (Claims App’x). With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Conn teaches a recoverable insulating sleeve for a gas cylinder wherein the insulating sleeve is applied to the cylinder by heat shrinking. Non-Final Act. 2. However, the Examiner finds that Conn fails to teach an inflated former or mandrel to expand a recoverable sleeve when deforming the sleeve prior to disposing it around a cylinder. Id. The Examiner finds that Evans discloses use of heat shrinkable sleeves for insulation and that one disadvantage of such sleeves is that they require heating to recover their desired dimension. Id. at 2-3. The Examiner also finds that Evans discloses a recoverable sleeve that does not require heat shrinking, and forming such a sleeve by expanding it with air inflation or a mandrel, and retaining the retractable and recoverable sleeve against an exterior support or guard (exterior restraining mechanism) which is subsequently removed. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Evans discloses expanding a sleeve with a mandrel or air pressure, but fails to disclose incorporating an inflatable mandrel with an elastomeric bladder on the exterior to expand the recoverable sleeve. Id. However, the Examiner finds that any one of Martin ’598, Martin ’730, or Nelson discloses an inflatable 3 The Final Action mailed October 7, 2015 does not state the rejections, instead stating that claims are rejected for the same reasons as expressed in specific paragraphs of the Non-Final Action. 3 Appeal 2017-003801 Application 13/821,271 mandrel that includes an elastomeric bladder that is expanded with air or fluid pressure. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the expanded mandrels of Martin ’568, Martin ’730, or Nelson in Evans’ process wherein Evans’ recoverable sleeve is applied to a gas cylinder for insulation, as taught by Conn, in place of Conn’s heat shrink sleeve material. Id. at 4. Appellants argue the Martin ’598, Martin ’730, and Nelson are not properly combined with Conn and Evans. Br. 17. Appellants argue that these references all relate to the manufacture of fiber reinforced tubes or pipes, and involve technology that is vastly different from the heat shrink sheath of Conn or the wire splicing sleeve of Evans. Id. Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to provide any credible reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the manufacture of fiber reinforced tubes for anything related to the wire repair of Evans or the insulation of cylinders of Conn. Id. According to Appellants, nothing in Martin’598, Martin’730, or Nelson would provide any guidance for overcoming problems identified by the Examiner with the combination of Conn and Evans. Id. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not provide adequate reasoning to combine Martin ’598, Martin ’730, or Nelson with Conn and Evans. The Examiner acknowledges that Evans fails to teach that those skilled in the art would have incorporated an inflatable mandrel with an exteriorly disposed elastomeric bladder for expansion of the recoverable sleeve in the processing. Non-Final Act. 3. Therefore, the Examiner does not show a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection. 4 Appeal 2017-003801 Application 13/821,271 Claims 2-11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Br. 23-24 (Claims App’x). These claims are patentable over the cited art because claim 1 is patentable. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1-11 as obvious. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-11 is reversed. REVERSED 5