Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2016

12813735 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/813,735 06/11/2010
53609 7590 05/02/2016
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P,C
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tian Xuan Zhang
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.
601067 7591
EXAMINER
LIN, KO-WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIAN XUAN ZHANG, DAVID MICHAEL CHAPIN,
and MILES ALAN PEREGOY
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tian Xuan Zhang et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A pulsed detonation cleaning device, comprising:
an air inlet;
a fuel inlet;
an ignition device in communication with the air inlet and
the fuel inlet for creating a plurality of detonation waves;
a plurality of folded flow paths in communication with the
ignition device; and
a plurality of flow turning devices positioned about the
plurality of folded flow paths such that the plurality of detonation
waves reverses direction a plurality of times.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Yang
Chapin
US 5,920,633 July 6, 1999
US 2009/0320439 Al Dec. 31, 2009
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chapin and Yang.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for patentability of claims 1-20 subject to the
Examiner's rejection as a group. Appeal Br. 3---6. We select claim 1 as
representative of this group, and claims 2-20 stand or fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Appellants contend that the claimed
invention is patentable over Chapin and Yang because "Yang is non-
2
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
analogous art" and "even if Yang is considered analogous art ... there is no
teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Chapin and Yang." Appeal
Br. 3, 5 (italics omitted).
Analogous Art
The Examiner determined that "Chapin teaches an air inlet (102), a
fuel inlet (104), [and] an ignition device (130) in communication with the air
inlet and the fuel inlet for creating a plurality of detonation waves." Final
Act. 2. The Examiner further determined that
Yang teaches a plurality of folded flow paths (formed by
20, 26, 30) and a plurality of flow turning devices (24b and the
concave portions of32a in figure 1) positioned about the plurality
of folded flow paths such that the plurality of detonation waves
reverses direction a plurality of times.
Id. at 2-3.
Appellants contend that Yang is non-analogous art because "Yang is
directed to a speaker enclosure ... [which] is not the same field or [sic]
endeavor as pulse detonation cleaning" 1 and Yang is not reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which Appellants were involved. Appeal Br. 4
(italics omitted). Appellants submit that the field of endeavor of the claimed
invention is pulse detonation cleaning of a boiler and "the problem solved by
the present application is providing a reduced foot print of a sound
detonation cleaning system." Id. at 4--5. Based on this understanding of the
1 The Examiner does not contest Appellants' assertion that Yang is not in the
same field of endeavor as Appellants' invention; nevertheless, the Examiner
maintains that Yang is "pertinent to the problem with which [Appellants
were] involved." Ans. 7.
3
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
problem solved by the claimed invention, Appellants assert that Yang is not
reasonably pertinent to the problem because Yang is "directed to providing
'a more faithful, i.e., more linear, reproduction of sound presentation as
intended in the original recording."' Id. at 4 (quoting Yang, col. 12, 11. 49-
50) (emphasis omitted). Appellants conclude that "Yang would not have
logically commended itself in considering the problem of the present
application" because "Yang is direct [sic] at providing a more linear
reproduction of sound, and the present application is directed at cleaning
soot, ash, slag, dust, etc." Id. at 5 (italics omitted).
To be analogous art and qualify as prior art in an obviousness
rejection, a reference "must satisfy one of the following conditions: (1) the
reference must be from the same field of endeavor; or (2) the reference must
be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved." K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (quoting Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm 't., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2011)).
The Supreme Court[]. . . directs us to construe the scope of
analogous art broadly, stating that ''familiar items may have
obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of
ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle."
Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007) with emphasis
added).
A reference is reasonably pertinent if ... it is one which, because
of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his
problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the
claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and
4
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection.
Innovention Toys, 637 F.3d at 1321 (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659
(Fed. Cir. 1992)); see also In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(same standard).
An objective of Appellants' invention is to reduce the footprint of the
pulsed detonator combustor system to permit it "to fit physically within the
existing space restrictions while being able to reach all portions of the boiler
that require cleaning." Spec. i-fi-f 103, 104. Appellants achieve this objective
by providing the system with "a number of folded flow paths in
communication with the ignition device, and a number of flow turning
devices positioned about the folded flow paths such that the detonation
waves reverse direction a number of times." Id. i-f 105. According to
Appellants, "[t]he multiple fold flow path ... thus may generate the
detonation waves ... in a relatively small footprint." Id. i-f 130. Aided by
turbulence generated by obstacles integrated with the walls defining the
wave transmission path, combustion waves in Appellants' device are
accelerated into detonation waves as they progress along the length of the
path, before they reach exit aperture 130. See id. i-fi-f 121, 122. Thus,
Appellants' device must provide a wave transmission path of sufficient
length to achieve adequate transition of deflagration waves to detonation
waves. See id.; Appeal Br. 6. Consequently, a problem with which
Appellants were presented was how to provide a wave transmission path of
sufficient length in a reduced footprint format for their device. See Ans. 7
("The problem to be solved by the present applicant is providing a reduced
foot print of a sound or pressure wave guiding device.").
5
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
Yang, like Appellants' invention, addresses a transmission path for
pressure waves. Yang, col. 1, 11. 7-11. The pressure waves in Yang are
sound waves, whereas the pressure waves in Appellants' invention are
detonation waves and deflagration waves transitioning to detonation waves;
nonetheless the waves are all pressure waves. See Yang col. 2, 11. 16-20
(stating that the enclosure panels "must be of sufficient structural integrity,
i.e., thickness, to maintain rigidity against sound wave pressure"); Spec.
i-f 112 (defining a pulsed detonation combustor as "a device or system that
produces both a pressure rise and a velocity increase"); Ans. 7 (noting that
"sound wave is a type of pressure wave"). Yang, like Appellants' invention,
requires a transmission path of a sufficient minimum length, albeit for a
different reason than that of Appellants' device-for smooth
extension/acoustic coupling of the response to a sound wave of a particular
sound wave length rather than for adequate transition from deflagration to
detonation. Yang, col. 1, 1. 62---col. 2, 1. 2; col. 5, 1. 55---col. 6, 1. 1. Further,
Yang teaches that "[t]he acoustic transmission line can be 'folded' or routed
within the enclosure in a labyrinth to establish the required length within an
overall box-like shape." Yang, col. 2, 11. 12-14. Thus, Yang addresses a
problem addressed by Appellants' invention-how to provide a wave
transmission path of sufficient length in a reduced footprint format. See
Ans. 7 ("While Yang's invention teaches providing a linear production of
sound, Yang also teaches reducing foot print of a pressure wave guiding
means."). Therefore, Yang would have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering the problem of providing a wave transmission path
of sufficient length in a reduced footprint format because Yang's disclosure
of folding the wave transmission line has the same purpose as the folding in
6
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
the claimed invention-providing a wave transmission path of given
required length in a reduced footprint format.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants fail to convince us that
Yang is non-analogous art.
Reason to Combine
The Examiner reasons that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Chapin with
Yang's invention in order to provide a more compact design of [a] pulsed
detonation combustor cleaning device." Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed modification of
Chapin with Yang relies on hindsight reasoning because "there is no
teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Chapin with Yang." Reply
Br. 4 (italics omitted); see also Appeal Br. 5---6. Appellants further assert
that the combination of Chapin and Yang does not result in Appellants'
invention because "the redirection path disclosed in Yang is intended to have
as little resistant [sic] as possible ... [and Appellants' invention uses] proper
blockage ... to restrict the flow in order to achieve deflagration to
detonation transition." Appeal Br. 6 (italics omitted).
Appellants' argument asserting lack of teaching, suggestion, or
motivation in the prior art does not point to error in the rejection. "The
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by an overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Rejections on obviousness grounds must be
supported by "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning"
7
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
to combine the known elements in the manner required in the claim at issue.
In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR,
550 U.S. at 418.
As noted above, the Examiner has articulated a reason (i.e., to provide
a more compact design of a pulsed detonation combustor cleaning device)
for combining the folded pressure wave transmission line concept taught by
Yang with the pulsed detonation combustor disclosed in Chapin. Chapin
shows recognition of a design incentive in the art to minimize the footprint
of a pulsed detonation combustion cleaner so that it is "conveniently
operable within the boiler environment, i.e., that it is able to fit within the
space restrictions." Chapin i-f 24. Further, Chapin teaches that the
combustion is accelerated along the length of a tube into detonation or quasi-
detonation before it reaches the aperture at the downstream end. Id. i-f 38.
Accordingly, the reason articulated by the Examiner has rational
underpinning, and Appellants have not cogently explained why the
Examiner's reasoning is flawed.
Appellants' argument regarding the differences between Yang and
Appellants' invention (i.e., Yang is intended to have as little resistance as
possible whereas Appellants' invention uses proper blockage to restrict the
flow) also does not apprise us of an error in the rejection. Chapin teaches
using obstacles 120 functioning as blockages to enhance the combustion and
accelerate the combustion front into a detonation or quasi-detonation.
Chapin i-f 38; see Ans. 8. As stated by the Examiner, "Yang is used only to
teach minimizing foot print of a pressure wave transmission or guiding
device by providing a tortuous path." Ans. 8. Moreover, claim 1 does not
require obstacles positioned within the flow paths. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims
8
Appeal2014-003147
Application 12/813,735
App.). Therefore, Appellants have not cogently explained why the
Examiner's reasoning is flawed.
For the reasons above, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9