Ex Parte Caminade

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2014

12036582 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2014)

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. 12/036,582 02/25/2008 Jean-Luc Caminade N1-19867 2279 63565 7590 09/17/2014 HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. Legal Dept., Mail Code K04 1069 State Road 46 East BATESVILLE, IN 47006 EXAMINER KELLEHER, WILLIAM J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3673 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2014 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 JEAN-LUC CAMINADE ____________________ Appeal 2012-007131 Application 12/036,582 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24-31. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a mattress type support device including at least one solenoid valve for controlling fluid feed/vent to or from compartments of the mattress. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2012-007131 Application 12/036,582 2 15. A mattress type support device comprising n inflatable compartments where n is at least two, a plurality p of the compartments each having at least one fluid transfer orifice and a single valve associated with the orifice for controlling fluid transfer therethrough each valve comprising a first endpiece connected to its associated orifice, the first endpiece having a first channel extending therethrough to an internal end of the first channel, and a second endpiece having a second axial channel extending therethrough to an internal end of the second channel, the second endpiece being a) connected to a pipe which extends to an air pumping device; or b) connected to a vent pipe or open to the atmosphere; each valve having a main body with an internal cavity into which both of the first and second internal channels open out by way of their respective internal ends, the internal cavity containing a magnetic core inside an axially extending induction coil, the core being longitudinally movable between an open position in which the core is separated from internal ends of both of the first and second internal channels to allow the fluid to pass through the valve, and a closed position in which the core closes the internal end of one of the first and second internal channels to prevent the fluid flowing through the valve. REJECTIONS Claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilkinson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2001/0023511 A1) and Kimble (U.S. Patent 7,182,311 B2). Ans. 5. OPINION Appellant argues the rejection above as a group based on limitations appearing in claim 15. Appellant contends that the format of the Examiner’s rejection fails to adequately articulate reasoning with rational underpinnings Appeal 2012-007131 Application 12/036,582 3 in support of the rejection (App. Br. 4-5 (citing KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007))) and also fails to explicitly address the Graham inquiries (App. Br. 7.). We disagree. A rejection must be set forth in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of § 132, such as by identifying where or how each limitation of the rejected claims is met by the prior art references. In re Jung, 637 F. 3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). There is nothing wrong with using an annotated figure (Ans. 5) to satisfy the requirements 35 U.S.C. § 132. Appellant does not apprise us of, nor do we discern, any limitation unaddressed by the Examiner’s rejection. The explanation of what the prior art discloses, and what it does not, satisfies the first two Graham inquires. The absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level. Okajima v. Bourdeau 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Wilkinson is cited by the Examiner regarding the recited features relating to the inflatable mattress. Ans. 5. However, Wilkinson depicts intake 40A-H and exhaust 42A-H valves schematically and does not describe the specific structure of those valves. The Examiner cited Kimble as disclosing a valve appropriate for use in Wilkinson’s device. Ans. 5-6. Appellant contends that the Examiner, in annotating Figure 5 of Kimble, has created an “artificial correspondence” between the claims and Kimble. App. Br. 5-7. Appellant contends, citing Appellant’s Specification, that the internal ends of the recited first and second channels are where first channel 14-1 meets “O-ring 17” and “somewhere to the left of abutment 16” for the second channel 14-2. App. Br. 6. The Examiner correctly points out that limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. Ans. 9-10; see In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Appeal 2012-007131 Application 12/036,582 4 The Examiner has not interpreted the ends of Kimble’s channels in an arbitrary or imaginary way. The “end” of Kimble’s outlet 50 channel is interpreted as the interface between the outlet 50 and cavity 60 at the location of seat 54. The “end” of Kimble’s inlet 34 channel is interpreted as the location where inlet fitting 20, which defines inlet 34, contacts O-ring 72. Each “end” includes some boundary or interface with some other identifiable structure. These are reasonable interpretations of the “end[s]” of the respective channels and are entirely consistent with Appellant’s Specification. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24-31 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 tkl