Ex Parte Zambaux

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2019

14665835 - (D) (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. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 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. § 102(b) over Hood, claims 16-18, 22-24, 26-28,
30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sacca, claims 26, 31, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Koria, and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 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. § 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. § 102(b) over Hood, claims 16-18, 22-24, 26-28, 30, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sacca, claims 26, 31, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Koria, and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Hood in view of Huang are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
8