Ex Parte Zambaux

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 2, 2019

14665835 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/665,835 03/23/2015 1009 7590 01/04/2019 KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC 800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200 LEXINGTON, KY 40503 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jean-Pascal Zambaux 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. 642-082 Cont. 3579 EXAMINER CONLEY, SEAN EVERETT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1799 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2019 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): uspto@iplawl.net laura@iplawl.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEAN-PASCAL ZAMBAUX Appeal2018-002014 Application 14/665,835 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, LILAN REN, and JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant (Pall Life Sciences Belgium) appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). The Invention The claims are to an apparatus for sample or product treatment. Claims 16, 26, and 30 are illustrative: 16. An apparatus comprising: a disinfector including a chamber for receiving one or more samples or products and a door adapted for moving between a closed position and an open position for introducing the one or more samples or products inside the chamber or Appeal2018-002014 Application 14/665,835 bringing the one or more samples or products outside the chamber; a membrane or film for isolating the chamber from the outside atmosphere, said membrane or film defining a chamber wall inside said apparatus when the door is in the closed position, said membrane or film including a sealable passage for passing the one or more samples or products through the membrane or film into the chamber. 26. An apparatus comprising: a housing including a chamber for receiving one or more samples or products, said chamber surrounded by a periphery; and a membrane or film forming a chamber wall inside said housing for isolating the chamber from the outside atmosphere, said membrane or film further comprising a joint or seal for sealing the membrane or film about the periphery of the chamber and a sealable passage for passing the one or more samples or products though the membrane or film into the chamber. 30. An apparatus comprising: an oven including a chamber for rece 1 vmg one or more samples or products, said chamber surrounded by a periphery; and a membrane or film forming a chamber wall inside said housing for isolating the chamber from the outside atmosphere, said membrane or film further comprising a joint or seal for sealing the membrane or film about the periphery of the chamber and a sealable passage for passing the one or more samples or products though the membrane or film into the chamber. Koria Huang Sacca Hood The References us 5,342,121 US 2002/0179625 Al US 7,174,772 B2 US 2009/0014459 Al 2 Aug. 30, 1994 Dec. 5, 2002 Feb. 13,2007 Jan. 15,2009 Appeal2018-002014 Application 14/665,835 The Rejections The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 16-19, 22, 24--26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) over Hood, claims 16-18, 22-24, 26-28, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) over Sacca, claims 26, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) over Koria, and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over Hood in view of Huang. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent claims (16, 26, and 30). 1 "Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. US.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Rejection over Hood Hood discloses a wet wipes portable dispenser (50) comprising: a) a collapsible container body (53) which contains wet wipes (54) and has an upper surface attached around its perimeter to a dispensing panel (52), b) a wet wipes dispensing opening (55) in the dispensing panel (52), c) a hinged cover (58) movable between a closed position in which it seals the dispensing opening (55) and an open position allowing access to the wet wipes (54), d) an endless wall (75) projecting from the dispensing panel (52) inwardly around the dispensing opening (55)'s perimeter and having therein a channel (76), and e) a silicone membrane (56) which extends across the 1 The Examiner does not rely in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) upon any obvious rationale regarding the limitations in independent claim 16 from which claim 20 depends (Final Act. 10-11). 3 Appeal2018-002014 Application 14/665,835 dispensing opening (55), is supported by a bulbous edge portion (77) thereof received in the channel (76), and has a hole (57) therein for removal of wet wipes (54) from the container body (53) (i1i155-57; Figs. 6, 9). Regarding the Appellant's claim 16's requirement of a disinfector, the Examiner finds that Hood's wet wipes portable dispenser (50) "can be used for disinfecting by applying a disinfectant" and, therefore, is a disinfector (Ans. 3). The Examiner apparently considers the Appellant's claim term "disinfector" to encompass anything that can contain a disinfectant. The Examiner states that he has given the Appellant's claim term "disinfector" its "broadest reasonable interpretation" (id.). "' [D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification."' In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Examiner does not address the Appellant's Specification and establish that the Examiner's meaning of "disinfector" is consistent therewith. Nor does the Examiner establish that Hood's wet wipes portable dispenser (50), without modification, can contain a disinfectant. With respect to the requirement in the Appellant's claims 16, 24, and 30 of a membrane or film for isolating the chamber from the outside atmosphere, the Examiner finds that Hood's wet wipes portable dispenser (50) "comprises a membrane/film (silicone membrane 56) isolating the chamber from the outside atmosphere and defining a chamber wall inside the apparatus when the door (58) is in the closed position" (Final Act. 6). 4 Appeal2018-002014 Application 14/665,835 The Appellant defines "isolate" as "at least keeping the chamber disinfected, sterile or depyrogenated" (Spec. 3:4--5). Hood discloses that "the silicone membrane 56 effectively seals the interior of the container body 53 preventing moisture loss. While a tip of the uppermost wipe 54 will extend through the opening 57 [in the silicone membrane 56] this is protected against moisture loss by closure of the cover 58" (i-f 59). The Examiner does not establish that the silicone membrane 56 is capable of not only sealing against moisture loss but also keeping the container body (53) disinfected. Regarding the requirement in the Appellant's claims 24 and 30 of a membrane or film "comprising a joint or seal for sealing the membrane or film about the periphery of the chamber," the Examiner finds that Hood "discloses a channel (7 6) along a periphery of the chamber for receiving the seal (bulbous end portion 77 of the silicone membrane 56)" (Final Act. 5---6). The ordinary meaning of "periphery" is: "Circumference; outer edge or boundary."2 Hood's channel (76) is around the outer edge or boundary of the dispensing opening (55), not the wet wipes portable dispenser (50) which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellant's chamber (Final Act. 6). As for the requirement in the Appellant's claim 3 0 of an oven, the Examiner finds that an oven is "a chamber used for baking, heating, or drying," 3 so Hood's wet wipes portable dispenser (50) "can be considered to be an oven as it permits drying" (Final Act. 5) and "would indeed permit 2 Concise Chemical and Technical Dictionary 794 (Chemical Publishing Co. 1974). 3 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 882 (11th ed. 2003). 5 Appeal2018-002014 Application 14/665,835 drying of an object if the lid is left open or if external heat is applied to the pack 50" (Ans. 3). The Examiner does not establish that Hood's wet wipes portable dispenser (50) is used for drying as required by the portion of the definition of "oven" relied upon by the Examiner or, in view of Hood's disclosure that "the silicone membrane effectively seals the interior of the container body 53 preventing moisture loss" (i-f 59), is capable of being used for drying. Moreover, a technical definition of "oven" is: "A heated enclosure for baking, heating, or drying."4 Hood's wet wipes portable dispenser (50) does not meet that definition at least because it is not heated. For the above reasons we reverse the rejections over Hood and over Hood in view of Huang. Rejection over Sacca Sacca discloses a leak detection system comprising a gloveport system (304) and a gloveport interface (316) (col.12, 11. 60-67; Fig. 9A). The gloveport system (304) is installed on an isolator wall (306) and comprises a gloveport (308), a sleeve (310), a cuff (312), and a glove (314) (col. 12, 11. 60-62; Fig. 9A). The gloveport interface (316) has upper (322) and lower (324) interlocking channels for attachment to the gloveport (308), and has a male protrusion (318) with a sealing 0-ring (320) for engaging the cuff (312)'s internal surface to create a leak tight connection ( col. 12, 1. 60 - col. 13, 1. 9). 4 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1419 (5th ed. 1994). 6 Appeal2018-002014 Application 14/665,835 With respect to claims 16, 24, and 30, the Examiner finds that Sacca's sleeve (310) corresponds to the Appellant's membrane or film for isolating the chamber from the outside atmosphere (Final Act. 7). Sacca does not disclose that the sleeve (310) provides isolation from the outside atmosphere. That isolation is provided by the test part interface (300)'s 0-ring (320) (col. 13, 11. 3---6). Regarding claims 24 and 30, the Examiner finds that Sacca's gloveport (308) seals sleeve (310) to the periphery of a chamber inside the isolator wall (306) (Final Act. 7; Ans. 7). The sealing is provided by the test part interface (300)'s 0-ring (320), not by the gloveport (308), and the gloveport (308) is not along the periphery, i.e., the outer edge or boundary of a chamber bounded by the isolator wall (306), but, rather, is within that boundary. As for claim 30, the Examiner finds that Sacca's chamber bounded by the isolator wall (306) is capable of drying and, therefore, is an oven (Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 6). The Examiner does not address the Appellant's Specification and establish that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellant's claim term "oven" consistent therewith includes anything in which drying can occur. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection over Sacca. Rejection over Koria Koria discloses a tubular body ( 40) for antiseptic containment of biohazardous material, comprising plastic sheeting ( 42) having cuffs or loops (48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58) for receiving flexible support rods (60, 62) which provide a supporting frame ( col. 4, 11. 10-32; Fig. 3). "This plastic 7 Appeal2018-002014 Application 14/665,835 sheeting 42 may be folded about a longitudinal line and heat sealed at the ends (44, 46 of FIG. 2) and along its remaining longitudinal edge (47), like a large bag, or have discrete end panels (74, 76 of FIG. 3) sealed to a tubular- shaped body" ( col. 4, 11. 22-27). The Examiner finds that any ofKoria's cuffs or loops (48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58) seals the tubular plastic body ( 40) about the periphery of a chamber within the tubular plastic body ( 40) (Final Act. 8; Ans. 8-9). Koria's plastic sheeting (42) is itself sealed, either as a large bag or a tubular-shaped body sealed to discrete end panels (74, 76) (col. 4, 11. 22-27). The plastic sheeting (42)'s cuffs or loops (48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58) do not seal the plastic sheeting ( 42) but, rather, attach it to flexible support rods ( 60, 62) which provide a supporting frame ( col. 4, 11. 28-32). Hence, we reverse the rejection over Koria. DECISION The rejections of claims 16-19, 22, 24--26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) over Hood, claims 16-18, 22-24, 26-28, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) over Sacca, claims 26, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) over Koria, and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over Hood in view of Huang are reversed. The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 8