Ex Parte Blackwood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2012

10517834 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

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. 10/517,834 07/20/2005 Andrew G.L. Blackwood 041618-77 8811 22204 7590 09/26/2012 NIXON PEABODY, LLP 401 9TH STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2128 EXAMINER RASHID, MAHBUBUR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 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 ANDREW G.L. BLACKWOOD and IGNITIUS MILOMO ____________________ Appeal 2010-009220 Application 10/517,834 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, BRETT C. MARTIN, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009220 Application 10/517,834 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Andrew G.L. Blackwood et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claims are directed generally to “a vehicle air supply system.” Spec. 1:3. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vehicle air supply system having a compressor, an air dryer, a reservoir adapted to receive air from the compressor via the air dryer, and control means operable to cause a standard regeneration of the air dryer when a predetermined system condition is met, the control means also being operable to cause an intermediate regeneration of the air dryer in advance of said predetermined system condition being met if said system condition is not met within a predetermined time period, the control means further being operable to prevent the intermediate regeneration, wherein the control means includes a governor adapted to cause the standard regeneration and a governor bypass adapted to cause the intermediate regeneration, the control means being adapted so as to disable the governor bypass to prevent the intermediate regeneration, wherein the control means includes a timer, wherein the control means is operable to selectively cause and prevent the intermediate regeneration depending upon air supply requirements. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cramer Beck US 5,027,529 WO 01/17834 A1 Jul. 2, 1991 March 15, 2001 Appeal 2010-009220 Application 10/517,834 3 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Beck and Cramer. Ans. 3. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 calls for a control means “operable to prevent the intermediate regeneration” and “operable to selectively cause and prevent the intermediate regeneration depending upon air supply requirements.” In the rejection, the Examiner asserts that Beck, which we note is also assigned to the same assignee, Wabco Automotive UK Limited, as the present application, “discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose a control means also selectively cause [sic] and inhibit the regeneration depending upon air supply requirements as claimed.” Ans. 4. In stating what Beck allegedly does disclose, however, the Examiner does not explain how Beck is operable to “prevent the intermediate regeneration” as claimed. See id. The Examiner then goes on to assert that Cramer supplies the deficiency of selective operation in Beck through its “control unit enabling and disabling of the [sic] in response to pressure level variations in the system and it also responds to compressor disabling by causing the system air dryer to regenerate or purge for a predetermined time period.” Id. The Examiner uses Cramer, however, only for the teaching of selective operation. See Ans. 6. In response, Appellants assert that “Cramer merely discloses a conventional compressed air system which is directed to the concept of terminating a purge of the air dryer that has already commenced.” App. Br. Appeal 2010-009220 Application 10/517,834 4 6. Appellants further point out that “the present invention contemplates circumstances or operating conditions of the vehicle air supply system where the commencement of such a purge of air flow could cause problems.” Id. Appellants also point out that, being a conventional system, Cramer teaches that the pressure level in the system is not allowed to reach a dangerously low level at any time because of the resetting of the purge timer when the pressure of the reservoir drops to a dangerously low level, thereby terminating the purging of the air dryer and permitting the compressor to come back on load. Reply Br. 4 (citing to Cramer 5:26-36). Appellants thus conclude that “Cramer remains completely silent with regard to preventing the commencement of the purge cycle, as in the present invention.” Id. The Examiner, in what essentially amounts to a new grounds of rejection in the Response to Arguments, finds that “the control means of Beck [is] operable to suspend/reset the timer when the compressor comes off load and thus an intermediate regeneration is to be inhibited” or prevented. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner then maintains that Cramer is used for the selective operation as discussed above, though now applied in the context of the claimed “preventing,” which as we note was not previously discussed in the Final Rejection. Appellants maintain that Cramer deals with enabling and/or causing intermediate regeneration or terminating the intermediate regeneration, but that the selective operation in Cramer in combination with the compressor operation in Beck still does not meet the claimed “control means includes a timer, wherein the control means is operable to selectively cause and prevent the intermediate regeneration depending upon air supply requirements.” See Reply Br. 3-4. Appeal 2010-009220 Application 10/517,834 5 We cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that the Examiner’s findings regarding the control means “operable to prevent the intermediate regeneration” and “operable to selectively cause and prevent the intermediate regeneration depending upon air supply requirements” as they relate to the combination of Beck and Cramer are correct. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections that rely on these findings. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-10, and 12. REVERSED mls