Ex Parte Duren et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 26, 2007

10131068 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALBERT PHILIP VAN DUREN, ALLEN HAMID ZIAIMEHR,
JOHN PAUL ROCK, SCOTT DOUGLAS AUGUSTINE, GARY RABINDRANATH and
RANDALL CHARLES ARNOLD
____________

Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068
Technology Center 3700
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before OWENS, CRAWFORD and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 1-3, 7-15,
19-24, 28-30, 34-42 and 46-51. Claims 4-6, 16-18, 31-33 and 43-
45 stand objected to as dependent from a rejected claim but
allowable if rewritten in independent form. Claims 25-27 and 52-
54 have been canceled.
1. A convective system for controlling the temperature of a
person, comprising:

a blower;
an air hose with a first end receivable in the blower and a
second end;

a convective device with an inlet port to receive
pressurized air from the second end; and
Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068

2

an interface device to open the second end when the second
end is positioned to provide pressurized air to the inlet port
and to close the second end when the second end is removed from
the inlet port.

13. A combination for controlling airflow out of an air
hose, comprising:

an inlet port for receiving pressurized air from an end of
an air hose; and,

an interface device to act between the end and the inlet
port by opening the end when the end is received by the inlet
port and to close the end when the end is separated from the
inlet port.

THE INVENTION
The appellants claim a system for controlling airflow
through an air hose. Claims 1 and 13 are illustrative:
THE REFERENCES
Shelton 5,230,611 Jul. 27, 1993
Kappel 5,749,109 May 12, 1998
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 7-15, 19-24, 28-30, 34-42 and 46-51 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Shelton.1
REMAND
The application is not in condition for decision on appeal.
Accordingly, we remand the application to the examiner.

1 Kappel is relied upon by the examiner as evidence that Shelton’s system is
convective (answer, pages 5-6).
Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068

3
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification. See
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
The appellants argue that their specification requires that
a convective device distributes thermally regulated air around a
person or a specific body area of a person (reply brief, page 3).
The appellants’ specification discloses the following regarding
the meaning of “convective device” as that term is used by the
appellants (¶ 0006):
A convective device may be embodied, for example, in an
inflatable device which inflates with pressurized, thermally
regulated air and has one or more surfaces adapted for
expelling air onto a person. Such devices may lie on,
around, or under the person. A convective device is
generally realized as a blanket, but can be embodied by
other appliances or attachments that are designed to be
operated by or with the application of pressurized,
thermally conditioned air. When used herein, the term
“convective device” is intended to include all blankets,
pads, covers, manifolds, and equivalent structures that
operate as just described.

The disclosure that a convective device “may be … for example” a
device for expelling thermally regulated air onto a person
indicates that the ability to expel air onto a person is not a
Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068

4

requirement of the device. Moreover, the specification further
discloses (¶ 0006):
Irrespective of orientation, a convective device utilized
for convective thermal treatment of persons performs at
least three basic functions. These functions are 1) the
conveyance of thermally conditioned air from at least one
inlet port into the device, 2) the imposition of a heat gain
or loss that changes the temperature of the thermally
conditioned air, and 3) the extravasation of the thermally
conditioned air from the device.

The three basic functions performed by the convective device do
not include expelling air onto a person. Thus, it reasonably
appears that the capability of expelling air onto a person is an
embodiment, rather than a requirement, of the convective device.
We remand the application for the examiner and the
appellants to address on the record whether the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “convective device” in view of the
appellants’ specification requires that the device is capable of
expelling air onto a person.2
Shelton discloses an inflator device which, when attached to
a plastic bag (94) such as an ordinary 30 gallon or 55 gallon
bag, provides a large volume of air at low pressure for inflating
air-inflatable objects (96) such as boats, air mattresses and

2 If the examiner continues to rely upon Kappel, the examiner must explain why
Kappel’s device, which has perforations (70) for forced air convection onto a
person (col. 2, lines 45-48), indicates that Shelton’s device for inflating
air-inflatable objects (col. 1, lines 5-7) is a convective device.
Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068

5
toys (abstract; col. 1, lines 51-53 and 60-63). When the
inflator device is inserted into a tubular inflation valve (38)
on the inflatable object, the inflator device’s angled tip (44)
gently pushes open a flapper valve (40) inside the inflation
device (col. 3, lines 5-7; fig. 1). Pressure is applied to the
plastic bag to force air from the bag through the inflation
device’s one-way air valve (20) and the tubular inflation valve
into the inflatable object (col. 2, lines 47-49; col. 5, lines
14-30). When the object has been inflated, removal of the
inflator device from the inflation valve closes the flapper
valve, thereby holding the air inside the inflatable object (col.
5, lines 30-32). The one-way air valve preferably is a flapper
valve, but can be another type of valve such as a duckbill valve,
ball valve or poppet valve (col. 2, lines 53-66).
One of the functions required of the convective device as
set forth in the specification and cited above is that the
convective device imposes a heat gain or loss that changes the
temperature of the thermally conditioned air. The examiner
argues that Shelton’s device “inherently and necessarily
transfers heat (kinetic energy from moving atoms or molecules) by
circulation of air” (answer, page 4). The examiner is of the
view that because there is motion of air molecules in Shelton’s
Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068

6
device there necessarily is heat transfer that changes the
temperature of the air. See id. The examiner, however, has not
explained why the pressure and volume relationships of the air in
Shelton’s device are such that a temperature change of the air
necessarily takes place.
Consequently, we remand the application for the examiner and
the appellants to address on the record whether there necessarily
is a temperature change of the air in Shelton’s device.
The appellants’ claim 1 requires an interface device to open
the second end of the air hose when the second end is positioned
to provide pressurized air to the inlet port and to close the
second end when the second end is removed from the inlet port.
The examiner argues that the interface device is “the cap to the
right of figure 8” (final rejection mailed January 10, 2005, page
3). What the examiner refers to as a cap is a bag attachment
fitting through which air flows (col. 3, lines 60-61; fig. 8).
That fitting does not open the second end or close the second end
at all, let alone when, respectively, the second end is
positioned to provide pressurized air to the inlet port or is
removed from the inlet port.
Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068

7
We further remand the application for the examiner and the
appellants to address on the record whether Shelton discloses the
interface device required by the appellants’ claim 1.
We also remand the application for the examiner and the
appellants to address on the record whether the appellants’
claims 13 and 40 read on a tire inflator, wherein: (claim 13) the
tire’s valve stem (interface device) acts between the end of the
air hose and the tire’s air inlet port by opening the end when
the end is received by the inlet port and closing the end when
the end is separated from the inlet port, and (claim 40) the air
hose’s valve acts at the air hose’s end and includes a part that
is movable (when contacted by the tire’s valve stem) between a
first configuration permitting airflow through the end to the
tire’s air inlet port and a second configuration restricting
airflow through the end.
Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068

8
This application, by virtue of its “special” status,
requires immediate action by the examiner. See MPEP § 708.01(d).
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences must be informed
promptly of any action affecting the appeal in this case,
including reopening of prosecution, allowance and/or abandonment
of the application.

REMANDED

)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068

9

TERRANCE A. MEADOR
INCAPLAW
1050 ROSECRANE STREET, STE. K
SAN DIEGO, CA 92106

TJO/lg