Ex Parte Quintard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2017

13386342 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
13/386,342 01/20/2012 Jacques Quintard Serie 8142 7506
40582 7590
American Air Liquide, Inc.
Intellectual Property Department
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
EXAMINER
MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2017 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):
IP-U S Office @ airliquide.com
Neva. Dare-c @ airliquide. com
Justin.Murray @ airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACQUES QUINT ARD, FREDERIC RICHARD, and
CHARLES TRUCHOT
Appeal 2017-002705
Application 13/386,342
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 15—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 We cite to the Substitute Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 20, 2012;
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated June 29, 2015; Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) dated February 29, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
dated October 7, 2016; and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated
December 7, 2016.
2 Appellants identify L’ Air Liquide, Societe Anonyme pour l’Etude et
l’Exploitation des Precedes Georges Claude as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002705
Application 13/386,342
BACKGROUND
The subject matter involved in this appeal relates to a device for
dispensing a fluid jet, such as for surface treatment of materials with
cryogenic fluid. Spec. 1,3. Claim 15—the sole independent claim on
appeal—is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as
follows, with emphasis added to highlight the key recitation in dispute:
15. A device for dispensing one or more jets of fluid (6)
comprising a fluid conveying pipeline (7) configured to feed a
fluid to one or more fluid dispensing nozzles (5) arranged at
the downstream end of said pipeline (7), and a motor (1)
collaborating with the fluid conveying pipeline (7) via a
rotary transmission shaft (2) and a transmission mechanism
(4a, 4b), in which device:
the fluid conveying pipeline (7) comprises an
upstream portion (7a) of first axis (XX) and a downstream
portion (7b) of second axis (YY), the first and second axes
(XX, YY) between them making an angle (a) of between 5
and 50°,
the downstream portion (7b) of second axis (YY)
comprising the downstream end of the pipeline (7) with said
fluid dispensing nozzle or nozzles, and wherein the
transmission mechanism (4a, 4b) comprises motion-inducing
elements capable of acting on said downstream portion (7b)
of pipeline to impart a determined movement to it,
further wherein the transmission mechanism (4a, 4b)
comprises:
a support pinion (4b) capable of rotational
movement about a rotation axis situated at the center of said
support pinion (4b),
the fluid conveying pipeline (7) being positioned
eccentrically and running freely through said support pinion
(4b), and
a pinion drive (4a) collaborating with the support
pinion (4b),
and the fluid conveying pipeline collaborates
with an anchor (8) arranged on the pipeline upstream of the
2
Appeal 2017-002705
Application 13/386,342
support pinion (4b), said anchor (8) forming all or part of a
setting system configured to allow adjustment the length of
fluid conveying pipeline between the anchor (8) and the
downstream end of said pipeline (7).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3
I. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
II. Claims 15—18 and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Barker.4
III. Claims 19 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barker.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellants present no argument in either the Appeal Brief or the
Reply Brief against the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph. Accordingly, we summarily sustain Rejection I.
Rejections II, III
Claim 15 recites, inter alia, an “anchor (8) forming all or part of a
setting system configured to allow adjustment [of] the length of fluid
conveying pipeline between the anchor (8) and the downstream end of said
pipleline (7).” That feature is depicted in Figure 3 of the Drawings, which
we reproduce below:
3 Final Act. 3—7; Ans. 2—5.
4 US 4,369,850, issued January 25, 1983 (“Barker”).
3
Appeal 2017-002705
Application 13/386,342
' X
: 7s
Ro
Figure 3 is a schematic side-view of a high-pressure fluid jet
dispensing device. Spec. 8. Anchor (8) is configured to selectively allow
adjustment of the distance between the anchor (8) and nozzle tool (5), such
that the radius (Ro) of a circular path described by the nozzle is variable.
Spec. 11-12.
Rejection II is premised on the Examiner’s finding that Barker
describes a pipeline which is clamped and, therefore, is “capable of
performing the intended use recited by the claims.” Final Act. 5.
Particularly, the Examiner relies on Barker’s teaching that “[t]he fluid
conduit 14 is clamped or otherwise fixedly attached to the main frame 11,”
in finding that Barker describes a clamp. Id.; Barker 2:60-62. The
Examiner infers that Barker’s clamp can perform the same function as the
recited anchor because Appellants teach the use of a clamp as an anchor.
Ans. 6 (citing claim 24).5
5 Claim 24 recites “[t]he device of claim 15, wherein the anchor (8)
comprises a clamping device, a gland, a split nut, an elastic taper or a rack-
pinion system.”
4
Appeal 2017-002705
Application 13/386,342
Appellants argue that even if Barker discloses a clamp as an anchor, it
does not describe an anchor configuration that permits a variable length of
pipeline as claimed. App. Br. 5. We agree.
The Examiner fails to point to evidence sufficient to support a finding
that Barker’s mechanism for clamping the pipeline to a frame is configured
such that the length of pipeline between the clamping mechanism and the
nozzle is variable. To the contrary, the relied-upon passage in Barker states
that the fluid conduit is “clamped or otherwise fixedly attached” to the
frame. Barker 2:60-61 (emphasis added). Moreover, while Barker teaches
that the nozzle may be advanced during a drilling operation, it accomplishes
that advancement by moving the entire apparatus along rails. Id. at 3:40-45,
Fig. 2. The Examiner fails to identify any description in Barker involving
adjustment of the length of fluid conduit extending from an anchor to the
downstream end of the conduit. As such, the Examiner has not set forth a
factual basis which is sufficient to support the inference that Barker’s
purported clamp is capable of performing the function recited in the claims.
It follows that we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
Because the Examiner’s obviousness rejection relies on the same deficient
finding as to Barker’s description of an anchor configured as claimed, that
rejection also is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s unchallenged decision rejecting claim 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 is summarily affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15—18 and 20—24 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
5
Appeal 2017-002705
Application 13/386,342
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6