Ex Parte Archer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

15216540 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/216,540 07/21/2016
15815 7590 12/20/2018
The Mason Group Patent Specialists LLC
2300 McDermott Rd
Suite 253
Plano, TX 75025
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Richard Archer
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.
TUP29263 3738
EXAMINER
THOMAS, LUCY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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):
vdavis@themasongroup.net
info@themasongroup.net
twhite@themasongroup.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN RICHARD ARCHER 1
Appeal2018-007859
Application 15/216,540
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant is the real party in interest /\pp, Br_ 3,
Appeal2018-007859
Application 15/216,540
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 31-50. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 31 is illustrative of Appellant's subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
A method for arc suppression comprising:
receiving a supply voltage from a voltage generator into an
input of an arc suppression circuit which is coupled in series
with a load to the voltage generator to form a series circuit
coupled to the voltage generator, wherein the arc suppression
circuit comprises a suppressor coil connected in parallel with a
shunt circuit between the input and an output of the arc
suppression circuit;
distributing the supply voltage across the series circuit, in
the absence of a fault condition, such that a voltage received
into the input of the arc suppression circuit is substantially
provided at the output of the arc suppression circuit;
redistributing the supply voltage across the series circuit,
during the fault condition, by removing a third voltage from a
fault location in the series circuit between the arc suppression
circuit and the load and distributing the third voltage across the
arc suppression circuit such that the voltage provided at the
output of the arc suppression circuit is different from the
voltage received into the arc suppression circuit.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Longsdorf et al.
Shimer et al.
Resnick
us 5,323,289
us 5,418,707
us 5,978,446
2
June 21, 1994 ("Longsdorf')
May 23, 1995 ("Shimer")
Nov. 2, 1999
Appeal2018-007859
Application 15/216,540
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 31-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (pre-AIA),
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
2. Claims 31--49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being
anticipated by Shimer.
3. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Shimer in view of Longsdorf.
4. Claims 31-33, 36, 37, 42--44, and 47-50 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Resnick.
ANALYSIS
To the extent that Appellant has presented substantive arguments for
the separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will address
them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of the
respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of
evidence on this record supports the Examiner's findings and conclusion that
Appellant's claims do not meet certain requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection as
discussed by the Examiner, with the following emphasis. We also address
the prior art rejections below.
Rejection 1
We agree with the Examiner that the language involving the "third
voltage from a fault location" is indefinite. The second paragraph of claim
3
Appeal2018-007859
Application 15/216,540
31 refers to a voltage received into the input of the arc suppression circuit,
and an output of the arc suppression circuit. The third paragraph of claim 31
refers to removing "a third voltage from a fault location." The fault location
is between arc suppression circuit 100 and the load shown in Appellant's
Figure 1, which would be the same location as the "output of the arc
suppression circuit" recited in the second paragraph; hence the uncertainty
regarding this claim language. We thus affirm Rejection 1.
Rejection 2--4
The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and indefinite, as
discussed above, to an extent that it is impossible to ascertain the propriety
of the grounds of rejection of these claims. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
1385 (CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862---63 (CCPA 1962).
Where claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, a§ 103
rejection of the claims can be reversed as impermissibly involving
speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. Steele, 305 F.2d at
862---63. Because the rejected claims fail to particularly point out and
distinctly claim Appellant's invention as required by the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the prior art rejections of these claims necessarily
involves speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. Under
these circumstances, we must reverse each of the prior art rejections.
However, we emphasize that our reversal of these rejections is
because the claims are indefinite; hence, a decision has not been made based
on the technical merits of prior art rejections respecting these claims.
4
Appeal2018-007859
Application 15/216,540
DECISION
Rejection 1 is affirmed.
Rejections 2--4 are reversed.
TIME PERIOD
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5