Ex Parte Chabert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2016

12096534 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/096,534 06/06/2008 Pascal Chabert
33308 7590 10/24/2016
HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5740-001 2422
EXAMINER
GOYAL,ARUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
docketing@ipfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PASCAL CHABER T
Appeal2014-004898
Application 12/096,534
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 5, and 7-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral
hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on September 22,
2016.
We reverse.
Appeal2014-004898
Application 12/096,534
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a plasma motor. Spec. 1 :3--4. Claim 1, the
sole independent claim before us, is reproduced below and is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1 A plasma motor for extracting a positive ion flow, said plasma
motor comprising:
a single ionization stage configured to generate electrons
by an ionizable electronegative gas introduced into the ionization
stage;
a filtering stage connected to the ionization stage; and
an extraction stage connected to the filtering stage and
including (i) a first device for extracting a negative ion flow,
wherein the first device is positively polarized to accelerate a
negative ion flow, and (ii) a second device for extracting a
positive ion flow, wherein the second device is negatively
polarized to accelerate the positive ion flow, wherein the positive
ion flow and the negative ion flow have a same amplitude
thereby ensuring an electrical neutrality of the motor; and
the filtering stage comprises a device for filtering the
electrons, which are free in the ionization stage, during the
ionization of the electronegative gas.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Song
Rabinowitz
Hruby
US 6,996,972 B2
US 7,115,881 B2
US 7,420,182 B2
REJECTIONS
Feb. 14,2006
Oct. 3, 2006
Sept. 2, 2008
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
2
Appeal2014-004898
Application 12/096,534
Claims 1, 3, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Song and Rabinowitz.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Song, Rabinowitz, and Hruby.
OPINION
The Examiner's enablement rejection is predicated on the finding that
"[r]emoving of electrons to produce plasma gas is well known in the Prior
Art. However, once the electrons (negatively charged particle) are removed
the remaining portion (positive ion and negative ion) would obviously have
positive charge." Final Act. 2. Although electropositive plasma thrusters,
such as those employing xenon, are known and common in the art, 1 the
Examiner has not provided any evidence or reasoning to indicate that
electropositive plasmas are the only form available, or the only form
suitable, for ion-propulsion systems. Appellant's Specification clearly
indicates that an ion-ion plasma derived from an electronegative gas, such as
iodine, is employed. Spec. 7:9-11. The Specification states (id.), and the
Examiner recognizes (Final Act. 5 (citing Rabinowitz col. 8:50)), iodine (or
diiodine) has a relatively large affinity for making negative ions. Further,
the Specification and claim 1 both indicate that free electrons are filtered out
of the plasma. The Examiner has not provided any factual support or
reasoning to indicate that the result of the aforementioned process would be
an electropositive plasma as opposed to an electroneutral plasma consisting
of positive and negative iodine ions. Thus, the Examiner's finding that the
1 Ane Aanesland et al., Electric propulsion using ion-ion plasmas, J. OF
PHYSICS: CONF. SERIES 162, 3 (2009).
3
Appeal2014-004898
Application 12/096,534
resulting plasma would have a positive charge is unsupported in the record
before us. As this forms the basis for the enablement rejection, this rejection
cannot be sustained.
The Examiner concedes that the entire claim was not considered in
making the prior-art rejections. Ans. 3 ("The Examiner reiterates that this
limitation was not rejected because it was not known at the time of the
invention how to filter electrons and still maintain electrical neutrality"). As
all words in a claim must be considered in judging the obviousness of the
claimed subject matter, the prior-art rejections are not sustainable on the
basis set forth by the Examiner. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385
(CCP A 1970).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
4