FOGTEC Brandschutz GmbH & Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020005574 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

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.
15/759,263 03/12/2018 Roger Dirksmeier 3129D/159 1002
2101 7590 05/03/2021
Sunstein LLP
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110-2321
EXAMINER
BOECKMANN, JASON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
usptomail@sunsteinlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER DIRKSMEIER and ULRICH HILTEMANN
Appeal 2020-005574
Application 15/759,263
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies FOGTEC Brandschutz GmbH & Co.
KG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005574
Application 15/759,263

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a firefighting extinguisher
system for efficiently heating an extinguishing agent stored within a
cylinder. Spec. 1:1–2:26. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites:
1. Firefighting system comprising:
a pressure-resistant extinguishing agent container;
at least one opening arranged in an outer wall of the
extinguishing agent container;
a pipe arranged in the opening; and
a heating sleeve completely engaged around the pipe and
extending into the interior of the extinguishing agent container,
wherein a temperature sensor is arranged to sense the
temperature of the extinguishing agent within the extinguishing
agent container and to switch on the heating sleeve to thaw the
extinguishing agent.

Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
EXAMINER’S REJECTION
Claims 1–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sprakel,2 Chrow,3 and Hollweck.4 Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Sprakel discloses all the limitations of
claim 1, except for the limitations reciting “a heating sleeve” and “a
temperature sensor.” See Final Act. 2–3. For the heating sleeve limitation,
the Examiner finds that Chrow teaches wrapping a heating sleeve around a

2 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US2010/0132963 A1, pub. June 3, 2010
(“Sprakel”).
3 U.S. Patent No. 3,355,572, iss. Nov. 28, 1967 (“Chrow”).
4 U.S. Patent No. 3,845,661, iss. Nov. 5, 1974 (“Hollweck”).
Appeal 2020-005574
Application 15/759,263

3
pipe used for conveying fluid. Id. at 3 (citing Chrow, 1:10–15). And for the
temperature sensor limitation, the Examiner finds that Hollweck teaches
mounting a temperature sensor within a pressurized vessel. Id. (citing
Hollweck, 1:10–18). As a reason to combine those teachings with Sprakel,
the Examiner reasons that adding a heating sleeve to the pipe of Sprakel
would have been obvious “in order to maintain the temperature of the fire
extinguishing liquid throughout the length of the pipe as taught by Chrow”
and adding a temperature sensor to the container of Sprakel would have been
obvious “in order to keep the fluid in the container above a predetermined
temperature, as taught by Hollweck.” Id.
We perceive error in the Examiner’s reason for combining the
teachings of Chrow and Hollweck with Sprakel’s fire extinguishing system.
To begin, Chrow’s heating sleeve comprises “electrical heating wires 12
wrapped in spiral fashion about [tube] 10 and in intimate contact therewith.”
Chrow, 2:43–48. But, as Appellant correctly notes, surrounding Chrow’s
heating sleeve are thermo-barrier layers of insulating material 18 and
insulating tape 21, which serve to prevent the release of heat into the
surrounding environment. See Appeal Br. 6–7; see also Chrow, 2:10–24,
2:70–3:32 (describing the various layers of Chrow’s “composite tubing”). In
other words, Chrow is concerned solely with heating a fluid environment
within the tube, not with heating a fluid environment outside the tube.
Indeed, the Examiner admits as much—“[t]he heating sleeve of Chrow is
designed to thaw any fluid that is within its heating tube.” Ans. 3 (emphasis
added); see also Chrow, 1:9–14 (describing Chrow’s invention as “a
composite tubing construction which is adapted for use in conveying a fluid
Appeal 2020-005574
Application 15/759,263

4
. . . while maintaining the temperature of the conveyed fluid substantially
constant throughout the length of the tubing.”).
With that in mind, we see shortcomings in the Examiner’s explanation
for why a skilled artisan would add Hollweck’s temperature sensor to
Sprakel’s fire extinguishing container as modified with Chrow’s heating
sleeve. As claimed, the temperature sensor is arranged “to sense the
temperature of the extinguishing agent within the extinguishing agent
container and to switch on the heating sleeve.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims
App.). For that limitation, the Examiner points to Hollweck’s teaching of a
temperature sensor “mounted in a pressurized vessel.” Final Act. 3. But, in
incorporating Hollweck’s temperature sensor into the modified
Sprakel/Chrow fire extinguishing container, the Examiner fails to justify any
need for sensing the temperature of the fluid in Sprakel’s container where
Chrow’s heating sleeve is only capable of heating the fluid in the tube, as
discussed above. Nor does the Examiner ever explain how Chrow’s heating
sleeve would even switch on in response to a temperature sensed in a
different, thermally distinct area of the container. As such, we are not all
persuaded that the Examiner provides sufficient reasoning with rational
underpinning to support the incorporation of Hollweck’s temperature sensor
into the modified Sprakel/Chrow fire extinguishing container.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1–17 as obvious over the
combination of Sprakel, Chrow, and Hollweck.
Appeal 2020-005574
Application 15/759,263

5
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17 103 Sprakel, Chrow,
Hollweck
1–17
REVERSED