Ex Parte Brand et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 22, 2013

11793910 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JAN BRAND and JAN-GRIGOR SCHUBERT ____________________ Appeal 2011-002252 Application 11/793,910 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002252 Application 11/793,910 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jan Brand et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-23. App. Br. 3. Claims 1-7 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 8, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal. 8. A linear compressor comprising: a pumping chamber in which a piston moves reciprocatingly; a frame fixedly connected to the pumping chamber; an oscillating body being retained on the frame by means of at least one spring so that the oscillating body moves reciprocatingly; at least one electromagnet mounted on the frame for driving the reciprocating movement of the oscillating body; and a translation rod connected to the piston with a first joint and connected to the oscillating body by a second joint. REJECTIONS Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lillie (WO 03/081041 A1; pub. Oct. 2, 2003).1 1 The Examiner used Lillie (US 7,316,547 B2; issued January 8, 2008) as a functional equivalent. Ans. 3. We refer to Lillie ‘547 herein as “Lillie.” Appeal 2011-002252 Application 11/793,910 3 Claims 8-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over König (US 1,996,160; iss. Apr. 2, 1935) and Miser (US 6,164,188; iss. Dec. 26, 2000). ANALYSIS Claims 8-10 and 13 – Anticipation - Lillie Appellants argue claims 8-10 and 13 as a group. App. Br. 5-7. We select claim 8 as representative of the group, with claims 9, 10, and 13 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner found Lillie discloses a compressor comprising a pumping chamber 20 in which a piston 2 moves reciprocatingly, and a frame (“outer structure that supports cylinder 1”) fixedly connected to the pumping chamber 20. Ans. 4 (citing Lillie, fig. 2). Appellants contend that Lillie discloses a “compression chamber” 20 for a piston, which is an empty space or volume within a piston cylinder, and that a “compression chamber” is not a “pumping chamber,” as claimed. App. Br. 5. Appellants contend that, according to the invention, “a pumping chamber is a housing element for holding a whole piston.” Id. Appellants also contend that “there is no reasonable interpretation by which a volume contained within a piston cylinder could also house that same piston cylinder.” Id. at 6. Claim 8 recites “a pumping chamber in which a piston moves reciprocatingly.” Appellants appear to contend that the claimed “pumping chamber” should be construed as a structure, whereas Lillie’s compression chamber “is merely an empty volume” inside a structure. App. Br. 6. Claim 8 does not, however, recite that the “pumping chamber” has any particular structure, much less that the “pumping chamber” is a “housing element.” Appeal 2011-002252 Application 11/793,910 4 Moreover, the Examiner found that Lillie’s “pumping chamber” includes structure, and hence is not “merely an empty volume.” Lillie discloses a piston 2 that reciprocates inside a cylinder 1, and a compression chamber 20. See Lillie, col. 3, ll. 3-4, 25-33. The Examiner stated “Lillie in figure 2 clearly discloses that the outer structure of the pumping chamber 20 (which simply is the external surface of cylinder 1) is fixedly connected to a U shaped frame.” Ans. 13 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Examiner determined that Lillie’s cylinder 1is part of the “pumping chamber.” Appellants have not apprised us of any error in this finding, or provided any persuasive argument as to why Lillie’s “pumping chamber” does not meet the limitation of the claimed “pumping chamber.” Appellants also contend that there is no fixed connection between the compression chamber 20 and the frame structure shown in Figure 2 of Lillie. App. Br. 6. Appellants contend that Figure 2 shows that “the piston cylinder 1 must always intervene between the compression chamber 20 and the element asserted as the frame.” Id. As discussed supra, however, the Examiner found that Lillie’s cylinder 1 is part of the “pumping chamber 20.” As such, the cylinder 1 does not intervene between the structure in Lillie’s apparatus that the Examiner determined corresponds to the “pumping chamber” and the frame. Accordingly, Appellants’ contention that Lillie does not disclose “a frame fixedly connected to the pumping chamber” is also not persuasive. We sustain the rejection of claim 8, and its dependent claims 9, 10, and 13, as anticipated by Lillie. Appeal 2011-002252 Application 11/793,910 5 Claims 8-23 – Obviousness – König and Miser Appellants argue claims 8-23 together as a group. App. Br. 7-9. We select claim 8 as representative of the group, with claims 9-23 standing or falling with claim 8. The Examiner found that König discloses a compressor comprising a pumping chamber in which a piston 3 moves, and a frame 5 fixedly connected to the pumping chamber. Ans. 5. The Examiner also found that König discloses a translation rod 4 connected to piston 3 with a first joint and connected to an oscillating body 1 by a second joint. Id. Based on this additional finding, we understand that the Examiner determined that König discloses each of the limitations recited in claim 8, including “a translation rod connected to the piston with a first joint and connected to the oscillating body by a second joint,” that is, that König anticipates claim 8. Appellants contend that the Examiner did not identify any specific disclosure in König that corresponds to the claimed pumping chamber. App. Br. 7. In response, the Examiner stated that “as shown in figure 1 [of König] a portion of structure 5 forms the cylindrical structure in which the piston is moving effectively forming a pumping chamber.” Ans. 14-15. We understand that the Examiner determined that the cylindrical structure in which piston 3 moves corresponds to the claimed “pumping chamber.” Appellants have not apprised us of any error in this finding, or provided any persuasive argument why König’s “pumping chamber” does not meet the limitation of the claimed “pumping chamber.” Appellants also contend that, in claim 8, the frame and the pumping chamber are two separate elements. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants contend that the Examiner did not identify “any actual pumping chamber with ‘a frame Appeal 2011-002252 Application 11/793,910 6 fixedly connected to the pumping chamber.’” Id. at 8. These contentions are not persuasive. First, claim 8 does not recite that the frame and pumping chamber are “separate elements” from each other. Second, claim 8 does not recite any limitation as to how the frame is “fixedly connected” to the pumping chamber. In addition, Appellants do not direct us to a specific definition of this term in the Specification. Absent an express intent by Appellants to impart a novel meaning to “fixedly connected,” we look to the ordinary meaning of the claim term. An ordinary meaning of “fixed” is “securely placed or fastened: stationary” (see MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 474 (11th ed. 2003)), and an ordinary meaning of “connected” is “joined or linked together” (see id. at 264). Applying these definitions of “fixed” and “connected” to the pertinent limitation of claim 8, we find that König’s housing 5 is “securely placed or fastened” and “joined or linked together” (i.e., “fixedly connected”) to the structure that forms the “pumping chamber” in which compressor 3 moves. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that König meets the “fixedly connected” limitation. We agree with the Examiner that König renders the claimed linear compressor unpatentable. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (A disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.)2 Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 8, and its dependent claims 9-23. 2 We do not reach the Examiner’s alternative ground of rejection of claim 8 as being obvious over the combination of König and Miser. Appeal 2011-002252 Application 11/793,910 7 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-23 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls