Ex Parte Siewert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2017

13976476 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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. 13/976,476 06/27/2013 Bryan Robert Siewert 67183-036PUS1; 57056US01 2802 26096 7590 08/31/2017 TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS P C EXAMINER 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2017 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): ptodocket @ cgolaw. com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRYAN ROBERT SIEWERT, MAY L. CORN, JEFFREY M. COHEN, MICHAEL R. CAREY, and MIKE LINDSAY Appeal 2016-007748 Application 13/976,476 Technology Center 3600 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, 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 21—34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 27, 2013; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated May 1, 2015; Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App Br.”) dated January 4, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated June 16, 2016, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated August 16, 2016. 2 Appellants identify UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-007748 Application 13/976,476 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to fire suppression systems and methods. Spec. Tflf 4—5. Claims 21, 28, and 34—the only independent claims on appeal—are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 21. A sprinkler system, comprising: a sprinkler nozzle; at least one conduit connected with the nozzle for delivering at least a fire extinguishing fluid to the nozzle, the nozzle and the conduit establishing a discharge path; a pneumatically driven pump connected with the conduit for pumping fluid into the conduit; a gas source providing pressurized gas to the pump for driving the pump, the gas source providing the gas to the discharge path to achieve a desired discharge of extinguishing fluid from the nozzle; and a controller that selectively controls (i) the gas provided to the pump to thereby control a pressure of the fluid in the conduit and (ii) the gas provided to the nozzle or the conduit to thereby control an amount of the gas delivered to the nozzle, wherein the controller varies at least one of (i) and (ii) between selected values in at least one of a cyclical, continuous or intermittent manner. 28. A method of suppressing fire, comprising the steps of: providing pressurized gas to a pneumatically driven pump that is connected with a conduit having a nozzle near an end of the conduit, the gas driving the pump for pumping fluid into the conduit, the conduit and the nozzle establishing a discharge path; providing the gas to the discharge path for achieving a desired discharge of extinguishing fluid from the nozzle; and selectively controlling 2 Appeal 2016-007748 Application 13/976,476 (i) the gas provided to the pump to thereby control a pressure of the fluid in the conduit and (ii) the gas provided to the nozzle or the conduit to thereby control an amount of the gas delivered to the nozzle by varying at least one of (i) and (ii) between selected values in at least one of a cyclical, intermittent or continuous manner. 34. A sprinkler system, comprising: a sprinkler nozzle; at least one conduit connected with the nozzle for delivering at least a fire extinguishing fluid to the nozzle, the nozzle and the conduit establishing a discharge path; a pneumatically driven pump connected with the conduit for pumping fluid into the conduit; a gas source providing pressurized gas to the pump for driving the pump, the gas source providing the gas to the discharge path to achieve a desired discharge of extinguishing fluid from the nozzle; and a controller that selectively controls (i) the gas provided to the pump to thereby control a pressure of the fluid in the conduit and (ii) the gas provided to the nozzle or the conduit to thereby control an amount of the gas delivered to the nozzle wherein the controller determines at least one of a volume or a pressure of the fluid provided to the pump and adjusts at least one of (i) or (ii) based on the determined volume or pressure to achieve a desired discharge of the fluid from the nozzle. 3 Appeal 2016-007748 Application 13/976,476 REJECTION Claims 21—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Crump.3 DISCUSSION Claim 21 recites, inter alia, a controller that varies the gas provided to the fluid pump or to the nozzle “in at least one of a cyclical, continuous or intermittent manner.” Claim 28 relatedly includes performing a method step of varying the gas provided to the fluid pump or to the nozzle “in at least one of a cyclical, intermittent or continuous manner.” The Specification explains that the recited variation in gas flow provides different nozzle discharge effects for addressing different types of fire situations. Spec. 122. Crump describes a self-sustaining compressed air foam system for fire suppression. Crump Abstract. In use, gas is delivered via pressure regulators to a gas-driven pump and to a pressurized air injector/agitator associated with a nozzle. Id. Tflf 33—34. The gas regulators reduce the gas from a system pressure to a working pressure. Id. 134. The Examiner finds that Crump’s regulators continuously or intermittently vary the delivered gas by virtue of maintaining a continuous gas flow during operation, or by virtue of a user turning Crump’s system on and off. Final Act. 6; Ans. 7. Appellants argue that these findings are in error. App. Br. 4. We agree. As Appellants’ persuasively point out, id., maintaining a continuous gas flow does not describe varying that gas flow between selected values. As for turning Crump’s system on and off, the Examiner fails to identify any description in Crump of such a function being performed by a controller or by a user in a cyclical, continuous or intermittent manner. 3 US 2010/0175897 Al, published July 15, 2010 (“Crump”). 4 Appeal 2016-007748 Application 13/976,476 With regard to claim 34, the Examiner relies on elements 25a—c in Crump as evidence of description of a controller that, inter alia, determines a volume or a pressure of the fire-extinguishing fluid delivered to the pump. Final Act. 5—6. However, Crump identifies 25a—c as pressure gauges associated with gas flows, not the fluid being delivered to the pump. See Crump 134, Fig. 3. Thus, the evidence relied upon by the Examiner is insufficient to support the finding that Crump’s system includes a controller that adjusts gas flow based on a determined volume or pressure of the fluid provided to the pump. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner fails to identify evidence sufficient to support the finding of anticipation as to each of the independent claims on appeal. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21—34 is reversed. REVERSED 5