Ex Parte BUERGER

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 12, 2019

14592681 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/592,681 01/08/2015
44064 7590 06/14/2019
THERMO FINNIGAN LLC
ATTN: IP LEGAL DEPT.
355 RIVER OAKS PARKWAY
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel BUERGER
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.
TP18755US1-NAT 6348
EXAMINER
LEBRON, BENJAMIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2019 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):
PatentDocketing@thermofisher.com
pair_thermofisher@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL BUERGER
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-292. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Dionex Softron GMBH, which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed April 13,
2018 ("App. Br."), 3.
2 Final Office Action entered December 8, 2017 ("Office Act."), 1.
Although the Examiner lists claim 5 as rejected on page 1 of the Final
Action, claim 5 is not included in any of the grounds of rejection set forth in
the Final Action (Final Act. 3-25), correctly reflecting its cancelled status.
Amendment filed June 20, 2017.
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims an adapter housing for receiving a component and
configured to be releasably connected to a socket unit (independent claims 1
and 28) and a connecting device for connecting capillary tubes (independent
claim 12). Independent claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and
is reproduced below with contested language italicized:
1. An adapter housing for receiving a component and
configured to be releasably connected to a socket unit,
wherein the socket unit comprises:
a rece1vmg openmg;
a pilot bore axially connected to the receiving opening, the
pilot bore having a radial wall and an end-face wall, and
a socket capillary tube axially connected to the end-face
wall, the socket capillary tube configured to direct a fluid to be
analyzed,
the adapter housing configured to be introduced into the
rece1vmg openmg,
the adapter housing comprises:
a connecting portion configured to be releasably fastened
to a connector housing to supply the fluid directed through the
connector housing;
a pre-column arranged in a bore of the adapter housing,
where the bore passes through the adapter housing, the pre-
column including a packing material, in that the pre-column
comprises a filter for filtering the fluid to be analyzed and for
restraining the pre-column packing material,
a sealing element is connected to the adapter housing
and seals the adapter housing in relation to the socket unit on
the radial wall and on the end-face wall when the adapter
housing is introduced into the receiving opening of the socket
unit,
the sealing element surrounds a lateral surface of the pre-
column and along an entire length of the pre-column so that the
fluid does not come into contact with a material of the adapter
housing whilst the fluid flows through the pre-column, in that
the filter abuts against an end face of the sealing element in a
2
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
mounted state.
App. Br. i (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis added and spacing altered
relative to original).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner's
Answer entered June 29, 2018:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 12-14, 16, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Hochgraeber3 et al. (WO 2010/133192 Al, published
November 25, 20104) ("Hochgraeber") in view of Ford et al. (US 5,525,303,
issued June 11, 1996) ("Ford 303");
II. Claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 15, 19, 20, and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Hochgraeber in view of Ford 303, Ford et al. (US
2008/0237112 Al, published October 2, 2008) ("Ford 112"), and Steams
(US 4,281,679, issued August 4, 1981);
III. Claims 9, 10, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hochgraeber in view of Ford 303 and Ford 112; and
IV. Claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hochgraeber in view of Ford 303, Ford 112, and Steams.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
3 Although the Examiner refers to this reference as "Unger" in the Final
Action, the first-named inventor of this application is "Hochgraeber." We
accordingly refer to this reference as "Hochgraeber," particularly because
the Examiner does so in the Answer.
4 Appellant does not contest the Examiner's reliance on Hochgraeber et al.,
US 2012/0061955 Al, published March 15, 2012, as an English equivalent
of Hochgraeber et al., WO 2010/133192 Al, published November 25, 2010.
Citations to "Hochgraeber" in this decision therefore refer to the published
U.S. application.
3
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
each of Appellant's contentions, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth in
the Final Action, the Answer, and below, and reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth in
the Appel Brief and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the appellant provides for each ground of rejection
the appellant contests. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In
re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Explaining that even if the
Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, "it has long been the
Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner's rejections.")).
Rejections I-III
Appellant presents arguments directed to independent claims 1 and 12
only, which Appellant argues together. App. Br. 13-24. We accordingly
select claim 1 as representative, and decide the appeal as to claims 1-4, 6-
16, and 18-27 based on claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Hochgraeber discloses a plug and socket
fitting for connecting capillary tubes within a high-performance liquid
chromatography instrument. Final Act. 3 ( citing Hochgraeber ,-J 34, Fig. 1 );
Ans. 29. The Examiner finds that Hochgraeber discloses that the fitting
includes plug housing 17 (adapter housing), bushing housing 9 (socket unit),
and sealing element 25 connected to plug housing 17. Final Act. 3-4 ( citing
Hochgraeber ,-J,-J 34, 36, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner finds that Hochgraeber
discloses plug capillary tube 19 arranged in a bore of plug housing 17
4
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
(adapter housing). Final Act. 4, 6 ( citing Hochgraeber ,i 36). The Examiner
finds that sealing element 25 seals plug housing 17 ( adapter housing) "in
relation with" bushing housing 9 (socket unit), and surrounds plug capillary
tube 19 along a length of plug capillary tube 19. Final Act. 4 ( citing
Hochgraeber ,i 36, Fig. 1 ).
The Examiner finds that while Hochgraeber discloses arranging plug
capillary tube 19 in a bore of plug housing 17 (adapter housing), Ford 303
would have suggested arranging a pre-column filter in the bore. Final Act.
6-7. Ford 303 discloses integral fitting and filter assembly 88 used to
connect a fluid supply line to the inlet of a high-performance liquid
chromatography instrument. Abst.; col. 2, 11. 37-41; col. 8, 11. 24-27; Fig. 5.
Ford 303 discloses that assembly 88 includes tubular body 90 having an
integral proximal fitting end 14 for connection to a fluid outlet and integral
distal fitting end 16 for connection to an instrument inlet. Col. 2, 11. 38-41;
col. 7, 1. 61-col. 8, 1. 5; Fig. 5. Ford 303 discloses that tubular body 90
defines central passage 18 extending from the first fitting end to the second
fitting end, and includes filter portion 34 in which selective chemical-
absorbent packing material 26-a filter-is retained. Col. 2, 11. 23-28; col.
8, 11. 12-13, 21-22; Fig. 5. The Examiner finds that Ford 303 discloses that
such a filter "is often used upstream of the inlet of an analytical column in
order to prolong the life of the analytical column," thus corresponding to a
"pre-column" filter. Final Act. 7; Ford 303 col. 1, 11. 39-41.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to arrange a
pre-column filter including a packing material as disclosed in Ford 303
within the sealing element in the bore of Hochgraeber' s plug housing 17
5
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
(adapter housing) to prolong the life of a chromatography column positioned
upstream of Hochgraeber's plug and socket fitting. Final Act. 7; Ans. 29.
Appellant argues that the principle of operation of Hochgraeber' s
plug-and-socket fitting is to provide a tool-free connection for high-
performance liquid chromatography in which simple, manual screwing of a
plug into a socket guarantees a pressure-tight connection. App. Br. 19
( citing Hochgraeber ,i 40). Appellant argues that modifying Hochgraeber' s
plug and socket fitting as proposed by the Examiner would impermissibly
change the principle of operation of Hochgraeber' s fitting from that of a
simple general purpose plug-and-socket fitting into a specific-purpose
combined pre-column assembly. App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 4-5. Appellant
argues that the resulting modified device could not be used to connect
capillary tubes to any component other than a chromatography column, and
the modification would therefore "destroy the general-purpose operation of
Hochgraeber's fitting." Reply Br. 5.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection, however, for reasons that follow. Hochgraeber
explains that in high-performance liquid chromatography instruments,
liquids or gases are fed through capillary tubes between components of the
instruments. ,i,i 2-3. Hochgraeber further explains that the capillary tubes
include fittings at their ends that are received into receptacles of bushing
units mounted in the instrument components to create a tight connection
between the capillary tubes and the instrument components. Id.
Hochgraeber' s invention lies in a connection system that creates a pressure-
tight connection between capillary tubes having different outer diameters
and bushing units mounted in high-performance liquid chromatography
6
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
instruments having receptacles with conventional diameters. ,i,i 11-13, 34.
Hochgraeber discloses connection system 1 comprising bushing unit 3
and plug unit 5. ,i 34, Fig. 1. Hochgraeber discloses that bushing unit 3
includes bushing housing 9 (socket unit), which can be mounted in a
component of a chromatography device, such as a chromatography column.
,i 34, Fig. 1. Hochgraeber discloses that bushing housing 9 includes
capillary tube receptacle opening 7, which expands into receptacle opening
15 for plug housing 17 (adapter housing) of plug unit 5. ,i 34, Fig. 1.
Hochgraeber discloses that plug unit comprises plug capillary tube 19
positioned within capillary tube receptacle opening 7 of plug housing 17.
,i 35, Fig. 1. Hochgraeber discloses that sealing element 25 surrounds the
entire front end and the lateral surface of plug capillary tube 19. ,i 36, Fig. 1.
Hochgraeber discloses that receptacle opening 15 in bushing housing
9 (socket unit) includes a thread on its inner wall that interacts with a
corresponding thread on the outer wall of plug housing 17 ( adapter housing).
,i 34, Fig. 1. Hochgraeber explains that that manually screwing plug housing
17 into receptacle opening 15 transmits high axial forces, even with low
rotational moments, and the corresponding threads on receptacle opening 15
and the outer wall of plug housing 17 therefore enable tool-free assembly of
plug unit 5 and bushing unit 5 into bushing unit 3. ,i 34. According to
Hochgraeber, the result is a pressure-tight connection. ,i 34.
As discussed above, the Examiner proposes modifying Hochgraeber' s
connection system 1 by arranging a pre-column filter as disclosed in Ford
303 within sealing element 25 in the capillary tube receptacle opening 7
(bore) of Hochgraeber' s plug housing 17 ( adapter housing) to prolong the
life of a chromatography column positioned upstream of Hochgraeber's
7
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
connection system 1. Final Act. 7; Ans. 29.
Appellant's arguments confuse the application or intended use of
Hochgraeber' s connection system 1 with its principle of operation. While
the Examiner's proposed modification may result in a device that could no
longer be used as a general purpose plug-and-socket fitting, the modified
device would still operate according to the same principles as the
unmodified device. Specifically, whether unmodified or modified as
proposed by the Examiner, Hochgraeber' s connection system 1 would
operate to provide a pressure-tight connection between plug unit 5 and
bushing unit 3 by virtue of corresponding threads on the inner wall of
bushing housing 9 (socket unit) and the outer wall of plug housing 17
(adapter housing). Contrary to Appellant's arguments, this principle of
operation would not be changed by including a pre-column filter, rather than
a capillary tube, within sealing element 25 in capillary tube receptacle
opening 7 of plug housing 1 7. Instead, the proposed modification would
allow Hochgraeber' s connection system 1 to be used for a different
application-as a pre-column filter-rather than for connecting capillary
tubes.
Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate
that Ford 303's adapter 10 "could be readily installed in any chromatography
system using Hochgraeber' s plug-and-socket fitting without modification to
Hochgraeber's plug-and-socket fitting." App. Br. 17-18. Appellant argues
that modifying Hochgraeber's plug unit to include a pre-column filter would
involve unnecessary time, expense, and effort "given that one could simply
take Ford's adaptor, screw it into Hochgraeber's socket, and then screw
Hochgraeber's plug into Ford's adaptor." App. Br. 19.
8
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
This argument is also unpersuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. Although one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to
develop a device for creating a pressure-tight connection between a pre-
column filter and a bushing unit mounted in a high-performance liquid
chromatography instrument may have recognized that this objective could be
achieved by "tak[ing] Ford's adaptor, screw[ing] it into Hochgraeber's
socket, and then screw[ing] Hochgraeber's plug into Ford's adaptor" as
Appellant argues, the ordinarily skilled artisan nonetheless also would have
recognized that this objective could be achieved by arranging a pre-column
filter within sealing element 25 in the capillary tube receptacle opening 7
(bore) of Hochgraeber' s plug housing 1 7 ( adapter housing), as proposed by
the Examiner. App. Br. 19.
Although the expense-in terms of cost, time, and effort-of
modifying Hochgraeber' s connection system 1 in this way may have been a
factor considered by one of ordinary skill in the art, this expense would not
have negated Ford's teaching that a pre-column filter advantageously
prolongs the life of an analytical column upstream of the pre-column filter,
and Hochgraeber's disclosure of a pressure-tight connecting assembly for
use in a high performance liquid chromatography instrument. Accordingly,
regardless of the expense involved, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that arranging a pre-column filter as disclosed in Ford 303
within sealing element 25 in the bore of Hochgraeber' s plug housing 17
(adapter housing) would prolong the life of a chromatography column
positioned upstream of Hochgraeber' s connection system 1. Orthopedic
Equipment Company, Inc. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir.
1983) ("[T]he fact that the two disclosed apparatus would not be combined
9
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
by businessmen for economic reasons is not the same as saying that it could
not be done because skilled persons in the art felt that there was some
technological incompatibility that prevented their combination. Only the
latter fact is telling on the issue of nonobviousness. "); In re F arrenkopf, 713
F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[A]dditional expense associated with the
addition of inhibitors would not discourage one of ordinary skill in the art").
Appellant argues that "[ e Jven if one were to modify Hochgraeber as
suggested by the Examiner, the proposed modification would render
Hochgraeber inoperable for its intended purpose." App. Br. 19. Appellant
argues that Hochgraeber' s fitting is designed to "allow simple, manual
screwing together of a plug-and-socket to provide a pressure-tight
connection." App. Br. 20. Appellant argues that Hochgraeber's pressure
piece 31 and attachment part 3 5 are crimped and thus rigidly connected to
both sealing element 25 and capillary tube 19 to transmit axial pressure
forces to effect sealing when the fitting is screwed together. App. Br. 20.
Appellant argues that, in contrast, Ford's sleeve 20, which includes packing
material 26, is slidably positioned within body 12. App. Br. 20. Appellant
argues that if Ford's pre-column were slidably mounted within
Hochgraeber' s plug unit 5 the resulting device would be inoperable because
axial pressure forces could not be transmitted from pressure piece 31 to
sealing element 25, while if Ford's pre-column were rigidly mounted within
Hochgraeber' s plug unit 4, the purpose of slidable sleeve 20 would be
destroyed because it could not be adjusted as needed to fill variable length
tube cavities in high-performance liquid chromatography instrument fittings.
App. Br. 20-21.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error in the
10
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
Examiner's rejection because they do not address the actual modification
proposed by the Examiner. As the Examiner explains, the proposed
modification of Hochgraeber is not based on bodily incorporating Ford
303 's integral fitting and filter assembly into Hochgraeber' s connection
system 1, and does not involve incorporating Ford 303's slidable sleeve 20
into Hochgraeber's connection system 1. Ans. 30-32. Rather, as discussed
above, the proposed modification involves including a filter material ( or pre-
column) within the sealing element in the bore of Hochgraeber's plug
housing (adapter housing), as suggested by Ford 303's disclosure of
including a chemical-absorbent packing material ( or filter) within the tubular
body of Ford's integral fitting and filter assembly. Final Act. 7.
Furthermore, as the Examiner also explains (Ans. 30-31), Ford 303's
disclosures are not limited to a filter and fitting assembly that includes a
slidable sleeve. Rather, Ford 303 discloses two types of integral fitting and
filter assemblies. Compare col. 2, 11. 29-36, with col. 2, 1. 63-col. 4, 1. 6.
The first type, which forms the basis of Appellant's arguments, includes
tubular body 12 having proximal fitting end 14, distal fitting end 16, and
central passage 18 extending from proximal fitting end 14 to distal fitting
end 16. Col. 4, 11. 13-19, Fig. 2. Ford discloses that tubular sleeve 20 is
slidably received within central passage 18 and is packed with selective
chemical-absorbent packing material 26. Col. 4, 11. 13-27, Fig. 2. Ford
discloses that the second type of integral fitting and filter assembly does not
include a slidable sleeve, and, therefore, tubular body 90 of this embodiment
"is formed to incorporate these features in a non-adjustable fashion." Col. 7,
1. 61-col. 8, 1. 4, col. 8, 11. 24-27, Fig. 5. Ford 303 discloses that tubular
body 90 defines central passage 18 that extends from a first fitting end to a
11
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
second fitting end, and includes filter portion 34 in which packing material
26-a filter-is retained. Col. 8, 11. 4-11, 21-22, Fig. 5.
Contrary to Appellant's arguments, in view of Ford 303's disclosures
as a whole, including the disclosure of a pre-column filter having a tubular
body formed without a slidable sleeve, one of ordinary skill in the art
seeking to develop a device for creating a pressure-tight connection between
a pre-column filter and a bushing unit mounted in a high-performance liquid
chromatography instrument as disclosed in Hochgraeber would have been
led to incorporate filter material (a pre-column) within Hochgraeber's
sealing element 25 without necessarily including a slidable sleeve around the
filter material. This proposed modification of Hochgraeber would still
"allow simple, manual screwing together of a plug-and-socket to provide a
pressure-tight connection," and, accordingly, would not render Hochgraeber
inoperable for its intended purpose, as Appellant argues. App. Br. 20.
Appellant argues that "Ford's nonadjustable embodiment teaches
away from the use of any seal between the packing material and the adaptor
housing." App. Br. 21. Appellant argues that because Ford 303 's non-
adjustable adaptor ( one-piece assembly 88) includes packing material 26
loaded directly into body 90, the body must be made of a material that is
biocompatible with the packing material and any fluid that flows through it.
App. Br. 23. Appellant argues that such an adapter having a biocompatible
body eliminates the need for a sealing element as recited in claim 1, which
isolates fluid in a bio-inert manner from the adaptor. App. Br. 23 ( citing
Spec. ,-i 32).
We note initially that the "nonadjustable embodiment" or
"nonadjustable adaptor" referred to by Appellant is fitting and filter
12
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
assembly 88 disclosed in Ford 303 and discussed above that does not include
a slidable sleeve. On the record before us, we find no disclosure in Ford 303
that criticizes or disparages use of a seal between packing material 26 and
body 90, and Appellant does not identify any such disclosure in Ford 303.
App. Br. 21-23. Accordingly, Ford 303's disclosure of packing material 26
loaded directly into the filter portion 34 of body 90 would not have
discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from arranging a pre-column
filter material as disclosed in Ford 303 within sealing element 25 of
Hochgraeber's plug housing 17 (adapter housing). Contrary to Appellant's
arguments, Ford 303 therefore does not teach away from the sealing element
recited in claim 1. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("We will not read
into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language
exists."); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior
art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a
teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does
not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed"); In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 552-53 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellant argues that Ford 303 teaches away from "the present
invention" because Ford 303 explicitly teaches that integral assembly 88
cannot be used with sockets having different bore depths, and instead, a
different integral assembly 88 must be made for each socket of varying bore
depth. App. Br. 22-23. Appellant argues that the "adaptor of the present
invention has a configuration that allows it to accommodate variously
dimensioned sockets (e.g., sockets having different pilot bore lengths)."
App. Br. 23.
13
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
The Examiner determines in the Answer, however, that claim 1 does
not recite that the adapter housing is adjustable, or has a configuration
allowing it to accommodate variously dimensioned sockets (Ans. 32), and
Appellant does not challenge this determination in the Reply Brief. Reply
Br. 1-7. Nevertheless, we find no disclosure in Ford 303 that criticizes or
disparages an integral fitting and filter assembly that cannot be used with
sockets having different bore depths, and, in fact, as discussed above, one
embodiment of Ford 303's invention is direction to such an assembly
(integral fitting and filter assembly 88). Ford 303's disclosure of both an
adjustable and nonadjustable integral fitting and filter assembly does not
constitute a teaching away from a nonadjustable assembly, because such
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage use of such a
fitting and filter assembly. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-4, 6-
16, and 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection IV
Independent claim 28 recites an adapter housing for receiving a
component and configured to be releasably connected to a socket unit that
comprises, in part, a sealing element comprising first, second, and third
sealing portions. Claim 28 requires the third sealing portion to have a
radially widened region in relation to the second sealing portion, and to be
pressed directly or indirectly by a closure against a stop region of the adapter
housing for the rearward sealing of the pre-column or for fixing the sealing
element.
Similar to claim 1 discussed above, the Examiner finds that the
combined disclosures of Hochgraeber and Ford 303 would have suggested
14
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
many of the features of claim 28, including a pre-column arranged in a bore
of an adapter housing, and a sealing element connected to the adapter
housing that surrounds a lateral surface of the pre-column along an entire
length of the pre-column. Final Act. 20-24. The Examiner finds, however,
that the combined disclosures of Hochgraeber and Ford 303 are silent as to a
sealing element that comprises a third sealing portion having a radially
widened region in relation to a second sealing portion, and are also silent as
to a third sealing portion being pressed directly or indirectly by a closure
against a stop region of an adapter housing for the rearward sealing of a pre-
column, or for fixing the sealing element. Final Act. 24. The Examiner
relies on Ford 112 and Steams to address these features. Final Act. 24-25.
Ford 112 discloses an analytical instrument fitting assembly that
includes first and second fittings having central passages for receiving
conduits, and a packed bed disposed within the central passages that
includes a body filled with separating media. ,i,i 7, 8. The Examiner finds
that Figure 6 of Ford 112 shows packed bed 30, which the Examiner finds
corresponds to a pre-column, disposed in a cavity between two fittings.
Final Act. 24 (citing Ford 112 ,i 41). Ford 112 discloses that packed bed 30
"has a generally cylindrical body 200." ,i 41. The Examiner finds that body
200 of packed bed 30 (pre-column) corresponds to a lateral sealing element
as recited in claim 28, and finds that Figure 6 of Ford 112 shows that packed
bed 30 comprises two portions with reduced thickness at input 202 and
output 204 ends of the body, which each surround seal 220. Final Act. 24
(citing Ford 112 ,i,i 41-42). The Examiner finds that seal 220 corresponds to
a closure as recited in claim 28. Final Act. 24. The Examiner finds that
Figure 6 shows that the portions of body 200 (sealing element) with reduced
15
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
thickness are pressed directly by seal 220 (closure) against a stop region of
the fittings, for the rearward and forward sealing of the pre-column and for
fixing the sealing element. Final Act. 24 (citing Ford 112 ,i 41, Fig. 6).
The Examiner finds that Steams demonstrates that "radially widened
regions are well-known in the art of column chromatography." Final Act. 25
( citing Steams Abst., col. 2, 11. 32-35).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date for the sealing
element of Hochgraeber's connection system I modified by Ford 303 to
comprise a third sealing portion pressed directly or indirectly by a closure
against a stop region of the adapter housing for the rearward sealing of the
pre-column or for fixing the sealing element, as taught by Ford 112, and for
the third sealing portion to have a radially widened region in relation to a
second sealing portion, with the closure having a corresponding tapered
surface, as taught by Steams, to provide a tight-fitting relationship for the
third sealing portion and the closure. Final Act. 25.
As Appellant argues (App. Br. 26-27), however, the Examiner does
not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that the relied-upon
disclosures of Ford 112 and Steams would have suggested modifying
sealing element 25 of Hochgraeber' s connection system 1 to have a third
portion with the features recited in claim 28.
As discussed above, Ford 112 discloses an analytical instrument
fitting assembly that includes packed bed 30 disposed within central
passages of first 22 and second 24 fittings. ,i,i 7, 8, Fig. 2. Ford 112
discloses that packed bed 30 "has a generally cylindrical body 200," and
input end 202 and output end 204 of body 200 each include annular recess
16
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
208 in which seal 220 is disposed. ,i 41, Fig. 6. Ford 112 discloses that seal
220, along with porous plug 230 disposed within annular recess 228 of each
seal 220, retain packing material 232 within packed bed 30. ,i 44, Fig. 6.
Steams discloses an adapter assembly for connecting a tubing with
either a male or female fitting. Col. 1, 11. 9-11. Steams discloses that the
adapter assembly includes sleeve 75 having shoulder 77 that serves as a seat
to receive tubing. Col. 2, 11. 44-46. Steams discloses that shoulder 77 has
flared end 78 that nests with tapered spool 62, which is sized to fit around
the tubing. Col. 2, 11. 34-35, 46-51.
The Examiner does not provide a persuasive, reasoned explanation
supported by objective evidence for why Ford l 12's disclosure of packed
bed 30 having generally cylindrical body 200 with annular recesses 208 at
each end in which seal 220 is disposed, and Steam's disclosure of a flared
sleeve that nests with a tapered spool for connecting tubing, would have
fairly suggested modifying sealing element 25 of Hochgraeber' s connection
system 1 to have a third portion with a radially widened region in relation to
a second sealing portion, which third portion is pressed directly or indirectly
by a closure against a stop region of plug housing 17 (adapter housing).
Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that the combined
disclosures of Hochgraeber, Ford 303, Ford 112, and Steams would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing an adapter
housing for receiving a component and configured to be releasably
connected to a socket unit that comprises, in part, a sealing element that
comprises first, second, and third sealing portions, where the third sealing
portion has a radially widened region in relation to the second sealing
portion, and is pressed directly or indirectly by a closure against a stop
17
Appeal 2018-00854 7
Application 14/592,681
region of the adapter housing for the rearward sealing of the pre-column or
for fixing the sealing element, as required by claim 28.
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 28,
and claim 29, which depends from claim 28, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 28
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18