Ex Parte ChabertDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 20, 201612096534 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation