Ex Parte Innings

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

12867929 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2017)

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.
12/867,929 09/20/2010 Fredrik Innings 1027651-000609 4642
21839 7590 08/28/2017
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
HOANG, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDRIK INNINGS
Appeal 2015-008187
Application 12/867,9291
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 33—48. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claims 33, 39, and 45 are the sole independent claims on appeal.
Below, we reproduce claim 33 as illustrative of the appealed claims.2
33. An adjustable steam injector comprising
an injector housing with an inlet for a product,
1 According to Appellants, “Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. is the real
party in interest.” Appeal Br. 2.
2 We correct the spelling of “center.”
Appeal 2015-008187
Application 12/867,929
a steam inlet and an outlet for the product mixed with
steam,
the injector further including an injector body displaceable
in the injector housing, there being provided about a front end of
said injector body concentric gaps for product and steam,
respectively,
wherein the injector body displays in its front end a recess
so that the front end of the injector body is a recessed front end,
the recess having the same extent as a cross sectional surface of
the injector body and having its greatest depth in a center of the
injector body; and
the injector body preventing fouling by being displaced so
that the product and the steam converge ahead of the recessed
front end of said injector body.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 33—48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Palm (US 6,708,709 Bl, iss. Mar. 23, 2004) and Boehm
(US 2,117,647, iss. May 17, 1938).
ANALYSIS
Based on our review of the record, including the Appeal and Reply
Briefs, and the Examiner’s Final Office Action and Answer, we determine
that the Examiner does not establish adequately that it would have been
obvious to modify the front section of Palm’s spindle to include a recessed
end, as is formed in the end of Boehm’s spindle. Thus, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of any of the claims.
More specifically, as set forth above, independent claim 33 recites
“the injector body displays in its front end a recess so that the front end of
the injector body is a recessed front end.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
Independent claims 39 and 45 recite similar recitations, and each of the
2
Appeal 2015-008187
Application 12/867,929
remaining claims—claims 34—38, 40-44, and 46-48—depends from one of
the independent claims. Id. The Examiner finds that although Palm
discloses almost all of the recitations of independent claim 33, including an
injector body (Palm’s spindle 4/front section 7), Palm does not disclose a
recessed front end. Final Action 3. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
“Boehm discloses an injector body (spindle 4, Fig. 1) wherein the injector
body displays in its front end a recess (end of spindle 5, Fig. 1) so that the
front end of the injector body is a recessed front end.” Id. With respect to
the combination, the Examiner determines that
[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify Boehm by applying
the teachings of Palm to Boehm, i.e. modifying the front end of
Boehm’s injector body to have a recessed front end [as taught by
Palm], ... in order to prevent clogging near the front section of
the adjustable steam injector, as suggested by Boehm in
col. 1:18—38. In the combination of Palm/Boehm, the injector
body would prevent fouling by being displaced so that the
product and the steam converge ahead of the recessed front end
of the injector body.
Id. at 3^4. Based on our review, however, we determine that the Examiner’s
reasons for combining the references lacks the required rational
underpinnings. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”).
As pointed out by Appellant, “Boehm does not describe a solution for
product burned onto the front end surface of an injector body. Boehm
instead describes configuring the front end of the spindle to scrape the inner
surface of a housing that surrounds a spindle to remove accumulated matter
3
Appeal 2015-008187
Application 12/867,929
on the housing inner surface.” Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 12—13; see
also Boehm from col. 1,11. 31—col. 2,11. 13. Based on our review of Boehm,
we agree with Appellant’s understanding of Boehm. Conversely, the
Examiner does not establish that Boehm is concerned with the undesired
accumulation of matter (“fouling”) on spindle 4, or that the spindle’s
recessed end 5 prevents fouling, on spindle 4 or otherwise. Further, the
Examiner does not establish that Palm’s arrangement is susceptible to
fouling on a housing in which Palm’s front end 7 is disposed, such that it
would have been obvious to include Boehm’s recessed end on Palm’s front
end 7 to scrape fouling from the housing. Thus, based on our review, we
agree with Appellant that “a person of ordinary skill in the art, interested in
addressing problems associated with product burning onto the forward
projecting front end surface of Palm’s injector body [Palm’s spindle 4/front
section 7)], would have no reason to look to the disclosure in Boehm” to
modify Palm’s spindle 4/front section 7. Appeal Br. 13.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 33—48.
REVERSED
4