Ex Parte Bateman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 16, 2015

11571917 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2015)

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. 11/571,917 01/10/2008 Robert Harold Bateman M-1360-02 1694 43840 7590 04/16/2015 Waters Technologies Corporation 34 MAPLE STREET - LG MILFORD, MA 01757 EXAMINER IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2881 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2015 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 ROBERT HAROLD BATEMAN, JEFFERY BROWN, and MARTIN GREEN ________________ Appeal 2013-004754 Application 11/571,917 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 17, 25, 26, 28–30, 34, 37, 38, 42, 44–47, 49, 57, 73, 77, 79, 86, 87 and 91–101. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a mass spectrometer and a method for using it. Claims 1 and 79 are illustrative: Appeal 2013-004754 Application 11/571,917 1. A mass spectrometer comprising: an ion guide or ion trap comprising at least 10 axial segments, each axial segment comprising one or more electrodes, said ion guide or ion trap having a longitudinal axis; means arranged and adapted to select parent or precursor ions within said ion guide or ion trap and to eject other ions from said ion guide or ion trap; means arranged and adapted to fragment said selected parent or precursor ions within said ion guide or ion trap so as to generate fragment ions; an oscillator configured to cause at least some of said fragment ions to oscillate in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis in a mode of operation so as to generate oscillating fragment ions; and a detector determining the frequency of oscillations of said oscillating fragment ions in said axial direction. 79. A method of mass spectrometry comprising: providing an ion guide or ion trap comprising at least 10 axial segments, each axial segment comprising one or more electrodes, said ion guide or ion trap having a longitudinal axis; selecting parent or precursor ions within said ion guide or ion trap and ejecting other ions from said ion guide or ion trap; fragmenting said selected parent or precursor ions within said ion guide or ion trap so as to generate fragment ions; causing at least some of said fragment ions to oscillate in an axial direction along the longitudinal axis in a mode of operation so as to generate oscillating fragment ions; and determining the frequency of oscillations of said oscillating fragment ions in said axial direction. 2 Appeal 2013-004754 Application 11/571,917 The References Zajfman US 2002/0190200 A1 Dec. 19, 2002 Park US 2002/0190205 A1 Dec. 19, 2002 Reinhold US 2004/0245455 A1 Dec. 9, 2004 Loboda US 2005/0253064 A1 Nov. 17, 2005 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 17, 25, 26, 28–30, 34, 42, 44–47, 57, 73, 77, 79, 86, 87 and 91– 101 over Loboda in view of Zajfman and Reinhold, and claims 37, 38 and 49 over Loboda in view of Zajfman, Reinhold and Park. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 79, 86 and 87.1 Those claims require selecting parent or precursor ions within an ion guide or ion trap, ejecting other ions from the ion guide or ion trap, and fragmenting the selected parent or precursor ions within the same ion guide or ion trap. To meet those claim requirements the Examiner relies upon Loboda and Reinhold (Ans. 2-5). The Examiner argues that Loboda discloses “means arranged and adapted to select a [sic] parent or precursor ions within said ion guide or ion trap and to eject other ions from said ion guide or ion trap, [and] means arranged and adapted to fragment said selected parent or precursor ions within said ion guide or ion trap so as to generate a plurality of fragment ions (FIG. 5, paragraphs 0057, 0059-0060, etc.)” (Ans. 2-3). 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Park for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Loboda, Zajfman and Reinhold as to the independent claims (Ans. 11-12). 3 Appeal 2013-004754 Application 11/571,917 Loboda does not trap selected ions and fragment them in the same trap but, rather, sends the trapped ions for further processing in a fragmentation cell (¶¶ 28, 29, 39, 40, 57). The Examiner argues that Reinhold “teaches that the fragmentation occurs within the ion trap (paragraphs 0004, 0009, 0014, 0026, 0032, 0108, 0113-0114, 0154, 0163, 0175, etc.)” (Ans. 4) and that “Reinhold explicitly states ‘the invention may further include fragmenting at least some of the ions confined in the second trapping region’” (Ans. 14). Reinhold selectively moves trapped ions to other traps where they are fragmented (¶¶ 26, 151, 152; Fig. 9), but does not select ions within a trap, eject other ions from the trap, and fragment the selected ions in the same trap. Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed invention. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 17, 25, 26, 28–30, 34, 42, 44–47, 57, 73, 77, 79, 86, 87 and 91–101 over Loboda in view of Zajfman and Reinhold, and claims 37, 38 and 49 over Loboda in view of Zajfman, Reinhold and Park are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED KRH 4