Ex Parte Bretmersky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2012

11457055 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex Parte CARL A. BRETMERSKY and JAMES W. SCHMITKONS Appeal 2010-008345 Application 11/457,055 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, GAY ANN SPAHN, and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008345 Application 11/457,055 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 3-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohtake (EP 0 450 131 A1; pub. Oct. 9, 1991) and either Schmitkons (US 2004/0239256 A1; pub. Dec. 2, 2004) or Yonejima (JP 2-259356 A; pub. Oct. 22, 1990). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “a microwave-excited lamp system that is capable of controlling the flow of air provided to cool the lamp, thereby maintaining a desired performance without overcooling.” Spec. 4, para. [0009]. Claims 3 and 9 are independent and claim 3, reproduced infra, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 3. A microwave-excited ultraviolet lamp system, comprising: a housing having an interior; a microwave chamber within said housing interior; a lamp bulb within said microwave chamber; a source of forced air communicating with said housing interior and providing a flow of air thereto; a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure associated with said housing interior, said pressure sensor producing a signal associated with the pressure sensed by said pressure sensor; and a control receiving the signal from said pressure sensor and in response thereto, adjusting the flow rate of the air to a different, non-zero flow rate to maintain a desired spectrum of the lamp system. Appeal 2010-008345 Application 11/457,055 3 ANALYSIS Independent claim 3 calls for: a pressure sensor configured to sense pressure associated with the housing interior of a microwave-exited ultraviolet lamp system; and a control receiving the pressure signal and in response thereto, adjusting the flow rate of the air to a different non-zero flow rate to maintain a desired spectrum of the lamp system. Independent method claim 9 is similar to independent cliam 3 in that it calls for sensing a pressure with the housing of the lamp system and adjusting a flow rate of cooling air based on the sensed pressure. In support of the rejection of the claims, the Examiner finds that Ohtake teaches the elements of claims 3 and 9 with the exception of “a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure associated with said housing interior.” Ans. 3. To cure the deficiency of Ohtake, the Examiner turns to either one of: Schmitkons for its teaching of “an exhaust system for a microwave excited UV lamp with a pressure sensor 104 to detect the air flow rate to ensure sufficient cooling of the lamp system.” (Id. citing to Schmitkons figs. 1-8 and paras. [0011] and [0033]-[0035]); or Yonejima for its teaching of “a lamp system with a cooling air flow including a pressure sensor 13 to control the air flow rate with a controller 17 to optimize lamp input” (Ans. 3-4 citing to Yonejima figs. 1-3 and the English abstract). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “to modify Ohtake to use any suitable sensing system including a temperature sensor or a pressure sensor for controlling the air flow rate [for] better feedback control [of] the cooling system, in view of the teachings of Schmitkons or Yonejima.” Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-008345 Application 11/457,055 4 Appellants contend that Ohtake “fails to disclose a control receiving a signal from the pressure sensor and maintaining a desired spectrum of the lamp system by adjusting the flow rate of air to a different non-zero flow rate in response to the signal from the pressure sensor, as set forth in claims 3 and 9.” App. Br. 7. Appellants also contend that “[b]ased on [Ohtake’s] sensed temperature, the flow of cooling air is adjusted to shorten the rise time of the emission from the bulb (Ohtake '131 at col. 6, lines 52-58) to minimize the generation of ozone or damage to the magnetron by reflected microwaves (Ohtake '131 at col. 2, lines 23-43).” Id. Both independent claims 3 and 9 require adjusting the flow rate of the air, based on sensed pressure, to a different, non-zero flow rate to maintain the desired spectrum of the lamp. Ohtake fails to disclose adjusting the flow rate of air based on sensed pressure, because Ohtake discloses: an infrared radiation thermal sensor 20 is provided adjacent to the lamp 1 but outside the micro-wave cavity 2, in order to shorten the rise time of emission by decreasing air flow from the blower 8 when the temperature of the lamp 1 is low before emission. The lamp 1 is cooled down with air from the blower 8 through vent-holes 21, 22, 23 and 24 provided on the dielectric mirror 11, the housing 12, the cavity wall 13, and the projection 18 respectively to prevent damage of the lamp 1 caused by overheat[ing] during emission. If the lamp 1 before the start of emission is cooled down with air like the lamp which is emitting, the temperature of the lamp 1 remains low due to overcooling so that the start of emission is delayed. Ohtake, col. 6, l. 53 through col. 7, l. 9. Emphasis omitted. The Examiner proposes to replace Ohtake’s thermal sensor 20 with either the differential pressure transducer 104 of Schmitkons or the air pressure sensor 13 of Yoneshima. However, neither Schmitkons’s Appeal 2010-008345 Application 11/457,055 5 differential pressure transducer 104 nor Yoneshima’s air pressure sensor 13 functions to adjust the flow rate of the air based on the sensed pressure in the housing interior. Rather, Schmitkons’s differential pressure transducer 104 “senses the pressure drop between the lamp head 28 and the air duct 50 and provides a signal to a control (not shown) of the light source 10 to shutdown operation when the desired pressure drop is not sensed by the pressure transducer.” Schmitkons, p. 3, para. [0033], last sentence. Emphasis omitted. Yoneshima’s air pressure sensor 13 detects the air pressure based on the air volume in duct 4 and sends a signal to a controller which controls the air volume by means of a damper 14. Yoneshima1, p. 2, ll. 9-12 and p. 7, l. 23 to p. 8, l. 2. As neither Schmitkons nor Yoneshima cure the deficiency of Ohtake by teaching adjusting the flow rate of air based on sensed pressure in the housing interior as is required by both independent claims 3 and 9, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 3 and 9, and claims 4-8, 10, and 11 which dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ohtake and either Schmitkons or Yoneshima. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3-11. REVERSED mls 1 Our references to “Yoneshima” in this opinion are to an English translation prepared by Schreiber Translations, Inc. in or about February 2010 which is of record in the application file.