Ex Parte Watson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2016

12657817 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/657,817 01/28/2010
96845 7590 03/09/2016
Advent, LLP
3930 South 147th Street
Suite 101
Omaha, NE 68144
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James B. Watson
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.
10185.0003US01 2387
EXAMINER
BANIANI, SHAD! SHUNT!
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2016 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):
sloma@adventip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES B. WATSON
Appeal2014-002505
Application 12/657 ,817
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James B. Watson (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 24--46. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a system for heating and/or cooling
agricultural related feed additives during their storage and/or delivery
process. Claims 24, 28, and 35 are independent. Claim 24 is illustrative and
is reproduced below:
Appeal2014-002505
Application 12/657 ,817
24. A feed system, comprising:
an animal feed additive fluid delivery system;
a feed additive fluid delivery line extending from said
animal feed additive fluid delivery system to a feed additive
target destination; said delivery line including an elongated
portion;
a hydronic radiant cooling system; said hydronic radiant
cooling system comprising:
a. a power source;
b. a fluid cooling system powered by said power
source for cooling fluid passing therethrough with the
cooled fluid being fluidly isolated from the animal feed
additive fluid in said delivery line;
c. said fluid cooling system including a cooling
line having an elongated portion which is closely
positioned to at least a portion of said elongated portion
of said delivery line;
d. a pump fluidly connected to said fluid cooling
system configured to pump the cooled fluid through said
cooling line whereby the cooled fluid passing through
said elongated portion of said cooling line will radiantly
cool said elongated portion of said delivery line and the
feed additive fluid in said elongated portion of said
delivery line.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Hare (US 2009/0107405 Al, pub. Apr. 30, 2009);
2
Appeal2014-002505
Application 12/657 ,817
(ii) claims 25, 27, 29, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hare and Thomas (US 5,983,889, iss. Nov. 16, 1999);
(iii) claims 32-34 and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hare and Eagon (US 2,906,626, iss. Sept. 29, 1959);
(iv) claims 43, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hare and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA); and
(v) claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hare.
ANALYSIS
Claims 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, and 37-39--Anticipation--Hare
The Examiner states that the cooling fluid passing through the fluid
cooling system 12, 36 is "fluidly isolated from the animal feed additive fluid
in said delivery line." Final Act. 2. According to the Examiner, "the animal
feed additive fluid in the delivery lines 24, 28 are in separate location from
that of the cooling system, [and] thus, the two are isolated from each other,"
and also, "they are not directly connected to each other." Id.
Appellant argues that the claimed system is designed to hydronically
heat and/or cool a liquid feed additive with the heating and cooling system
never coming into direct contact with the feed additive itself. Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant additionally maintains that "the phrase 'with the cooled fluid
being fluidly isolated from the animal feed additive fluid in said delivery
line' as set forth in Claim 24, is not merely functional but clearly is a
structural limitation." Reply Br. 2.
Unlike obviousness, anticipation requires that a prior art reference
disclose all of the limitations of a claim, arranged or combined in the same
3
Appeal2014-002505
Application 12/657 ,817
way as recited in the claim. See Net Money IN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545
F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, independent claim 24 requires that
the cooled fluid is fluidly isolated from the animal feed additive fluid in the
delivery line. As such, there are two structurally distinct fluid lines, the
delivery line that contains animal feed additive fluid, and the cooling line
that contains cooling fluid and that is fluidly isolated from the animal feed
additive fluid in the delivery line. See Spec. Fig. 1. By contrast, Hare
discloses that all fluid circulates through interconnected lines that define a
circulating system so that "fluid from the mixing reservoir 12 can pass
through the connection line [(14)] to the larger reservoir 18, through the
supply line 24 past the feeding units 30 on the feed lines 28 and into the
return line 32 for return to the mixing reservoir 12." Hare, i-f 76, Fig. 1.
Given that the structure of Hare is not arranged in the same way as recited in
claim 24, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation. Similarly, independent claim 28 requires that a heated fluid is
"fluidly isolated from the animal feed additive fluid in said delivery line,"
and independent claim 35 requires that either a heated fluid or a cooled fluid
is "fluidly isolated from the animal feed additive fluid in said delivery line."
Because Hare fails to fluidly isolate either a heated fluid or a cooled fluid
from the animal feed delivery fluid, for the same reason discussed above, the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation of claims 28
and 35. As such, the rejection of claims 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, and 37-39
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is not sustained.
4
Appeal2014-002505
Application 12/657 ,817
Claims 25, 27, 29, 32-34, 36, 40--43, 45 and 46--0bviousness--
H are/Thomas/Eagon/ AAP A
The Examiner does not rely on Thomas, Eagon, or AAP A in any
manner that remedies the deficiency of the rejection based on Hare.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 25, 27, 29, and 36 as unpatentable over Hare
and Thomas; of claims 32-34 and 40-42 as unpatentable over Hare and
Eagon; and of claims 43, 45, and 46 as unpatentable over Hare and AAPA.
Claim 44--0bviousness--Hare
The Examiner's position relative to the alleged obviousness of claim
44 over Hare suffers from the same deficiency as does the rejection of claim
1 as being anticipated by Hare. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 44 as
being unpatentable over Hare is not sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, and 37-39 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hare; and the rejections of claims
25, 27, 29, 32-34, 36, and 40-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hare, Thomas, Eagon, AAP A, and Watson, are reversed.
REVERSED
5