Ex Parte Hoffman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

11786976 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LESLIE HOFFMAN and RAYMOND LATHROP ____________ Appeal 2010-005723 Application 11/786,976 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005723 Application 11/786,976 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 1-5, 7, and 8. (Ans. 3) Claims 6 (Ans. 3) and 9-20 (App. Br. 2) were canceled. Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Reverse. INVENTION This invention relates to motor blower assembly for use in patient ventilation systems. (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A blower assembly comprising: a blower housing; a motor assembly disposed within the blower housing and including a stator assembly and a rotor magnet; an impeller rotatable with the motor assembly; and at least one suspension mount extending laterally outwardly from a perimeter of the blower housing and being sized and configured to support the blower assembly, the suspension mount being integrally formed with the blower housing by injection molding. (Disputed limitations emphasized). REJECTIONS R1. Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 6,488,475 B2; "Murata") in view of Buckman et al. (US 4,161,667; "Buckman"), and further in view of Amrhein et al. (GB 2260861 A; "Amrhein"). (Ans. 3). Appeal 2010-005723 Application 11/786,976 3 R2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murata, Buckman, Amrhein, and Harms et al. (US 4,933,584; "Harms"). R3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murata, Buckman, and Amrhein in further view of Po1k (US 1,491,736; "Polk"). R4. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murata, Buckman, and Amrhein in further view of Cremer et al. (US 2005/0058556 A1; "Cremer"). GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of the obviousness rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 8 on the basis of claim 1. ANALYSIS Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested “at least one suspension mount extending laterally outwardly from a perimeter of the blower housing,” within the meaning of claim 1? Appellants contend: Buckman, which was cited for teaching “suspension [] angularly spaced about the housing of [the] blower motor housing,” actually teaches that the "motor is supported within the housing 2 by a plurality of circumferential spaced brackets 3." Col. 2, In. 46-47 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the brackets taught by Buckman do not extend outwardly from a Appeal 2010-005723 Application 11/786,976 4 perimeter of the blower housing, but actually extend inwardly toward the motor. (App. Br. 10). The Examiner responds: The Appellant[s’] claims state that motor assembly (stator and rotor) is disposed within the blower housing. Therefore, the motor frame 1 of Buckman, corresponds to the Appellant[s’] claimed blower housing. Particularly, Buckman col. 2, lines 42-45 teaches that the electric motor has a main frame 1 “which is located within the housing of the blower”. (Ans. 7). Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. We find Buckman’s blower housing 2 corresponds to the claimed “blower housing” and that Buckman's main frame 1 corresponds to a part of the claimed “motor assembly.” (See App. Br. 10). This is because Buckman's statement that “an electric motor having a main frame 1” teaches that Buckman’s main frame 1 is a part of the electric motor (claimed “motor assembly”) and thus does not reasonably teach or suggest the claimed “blower assembly.” (Buckman col. 2, ll. 43-45; Figs. 1-2). Thus, we agree with Appellants that Buckman's Figures 1-2 show that the brackets 3 (“suspension mount”) do not extend laterally outwardly from a perimeter of the blower housing 2, as required by the claim, but instead extend inwardly from the blower housing 2 toward the motor main frame 1. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested “at least one suspension mount extending laterally outwardly from a perimeter of the blower housing,” within the meaning of claim 1. Appeal 2010-005723 Application 11/786,976 5 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and also the rejections of claims 2-5, 7, and 8, which depend therefrom. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 8 under § 103. REVERSED peb