Ex Parte Hackman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2007

10689951 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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 GREGORY HACKMAN,
JENNIFER BRAUN,
DONALD J. DALE and
DAVID BLAIR MORRIS
____________

Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951
____________

HEARD: January 11, 2007
____________

Before OWENS, CRAWFORD, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
The appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 1-14,
which are all of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The appellants claim an apparatus and method for cryogenic
fluid distribution. Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

1. A cryogenic fluid distribution device, comprising:

a fluid flow passage for distributing cryogenic fluid to
an apparatus;

an overflow passage positioned downstream of the
apparatus; and

a sensor coupled to the overflow passage, the sensor
having an active component for determining if fluid is present
in the overflow passage.

THE REFERENCES
Maric 5,142,874 Sep. 1, 1992
McCulloch et al. (McCulloch) 6,016,697 Jan. 25, 2000

Sillat1 44 20 621 A1 Dec. 22, 1994
(German patent)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 6-11,
13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sillat;
claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sillat in
view of McCulloch; claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Sillat in view of Maric; and claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sillat in view of Maric
and McCulloch.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 6-11 and reverse
the rejections of claims 2-5 and 12-14.

1 Citations herein to Sillat are to the English translation
thereof which is of record.
2
Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

Claims 1 and 6-11
The appellants argue claims 1 and 6-11 as a group (brief,
pages 7-9). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim in
that group, i.e., claim 1. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)
(vii)(2004).
Sillat discloses a method for protecting against overflow
of a container being filled with a cryogenic medium (page 1).
The cryogenic medium is fed to the container through line 6,
and gaseous medium displaced from the container exits through
line 10 that contains, as a sensor, vapor pressure contact
manometer 12 (page 4). Pneumatic energy D is fed to control
unit K, and the outputs of the control unit are pneumatic
line B and line C that can be either a pneumatic line or an
electric line (page 4). Line C goes to pneumatic or electric
contact manometer P3 in line 13 which is between manometer 12
and a valve (14) (page 4). Both line 13 and manometer 12 are
filled with neon (page 4). When the container is overfilled,
liquid entering line 10 causes a temperature drop in the sensor
of manometer 12 that results in condensation of the sensor
medium in that manometer (page 4). The condensation causes a
pressure drop in line 13 that is measured by manometer P3
(page 4). Manometer P3 then signals control unit K to stop the
inlet flow of cryogenic medium (page 4).
3
Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

The appellants argue that Sillat’s manometer 12 is not an
active component because it is simply a vessel filled with a
gas such as neon that condenses when surrounded by cryogenic
liquid (brief, pages 7-9). The appellants’ specification does
not define the term “active”. The common meanings of “active”
include “productive of action or movement”2. The condensation
produced in manometer 12 is an action or movement. Hence, we
are not convinced by the appellants’ argument that “active
component” in claim 1 excludes Sillat’s manometer 12.
The appellants argue that Sillat’s manometer 12 is not
pneumatically connected to controller K (brief, page 8). We do
not find in the appellants’ claim 1 any limitation that
requires Sillat’s manometer 12 to be pneumatically connected to
that controller.
The appellants argue that Sillat’s only potentially active
component used in connection with the bypass line is
manometer P3 which is not in bypass line 10 (brief, page 8).
The appellants’ claim 1 does not require Sillat’s sensor to be
in line 10. The claim merely requires that the sensor is

2 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 12 (G. & C. Merriam 1973).
4
Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

“coupled to the overflow passage”. Sillat’s manometer P3 is
operatively coupled to overflow line 10.3
The appellants argue that Sillat’s line 10 is not a fluid
flow passage for distribution of cryogenic fluid (brief,
page 8). The appellants’ claim 1 requires a sensor coupled to
the overflow passage, not to the fluid flow passage. There is
no requirement in that claim that Sillat’s line 10 be a fluid
flow passage for distribution of cryogenic fluid.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6-11.
Claims 13 and 14
Claim 13, which depends from claim 11, requires a sensor
that is coupled to an overflow passage and has 1) an active
component configured for determining if cryogenic liquid is
present in the overflow passage, 2) a sensor body configured to
define a fluid flow path through the sensor body, and 3) a
recess opening into the fluid flow path.
The examiner does not point out where Sillat discloses a
sensor having a recess opening into a fluid flow path. Thus,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of

3 Moreover, Sillat’s manometer P3 and controller K, in
combination, are operatively coupled as an active component to
line 10 (figure 1).
5
Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

anticipation of the invention claimed in the appellants’
claim 13 and its dependent claim 14.
Claims 2 and 12
Claims 2 and 12 require that the active component is a
light emitting diode.
McCulloch discloses a capacitive level sensor for a
cryogenic tank (100) (col. 1, lines 6-9; col. 5, line 8). The
capacitances are read by a controller having on its display
panel light emitting diodes that indicate the status of control
and alarm setpoints such as high level and low level (col. 7,
line 47 – col. 8, line 7).
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to use McCulloch’s light emitting
diode in Sillat’s system to act as an active component for
determining the presence of fluid (answer, pages 3-4). The
appellants’ claims require that the active component is a
component of a sensor, whereas McCulloch’s light emitting diode
is a component of a display panel. The examiner has not
explained how a disclosure of a light emitting diode on a
display panel would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to use the light emitting diode as an active component of any
sensor, let alone Sillat’s manometers.
6
Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

The examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness of the inventions claimed in the
appellants’ claims 2 and 12.
Claims 3 and 4
Maric discloses a cryogenic apparatus including a heat
exchanger coil (22) that passes into, through, and out of a
vessel (12). The heat exchanger coil includes, outside the
point where it exits the vessel, a temperature sensor (70)
inserted into a hole that intersects the coil’s flow passage of
heat exchange medium (figure 1). The temperature sensor
measures the temperature of condensate produced in the heat
exchanger coil from vapor that has been condensed by heat
exchange with the cryogenic fluid (col. 5, lines 66-68; col. 6,
lines 20-28 and 41-42).
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to use Maric’s hole intersecting a
fluid passage in Sillat’s sensor to act as an active component
for determining fluid temperature (answer, page 4). Maric’s
hole intersecting a fluid passage is not in a cryogenic fluid
line but, rather, is in a heat exchanger coil condensate line
(col. 6, lines 41-42). The examiner has not explained how
Maric’s disclosure would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to use Maric’s hole intersecting a fluid passage in
7
Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

combination with or as a replacement for the manometer in
Sillat’s cryogenic fluid line.
Thus, the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness of the inventions claimed in the appellants’
claims 3 and 4.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and requires that the active
component is a light emitting diode. As discussed above, the
examiner has not established that McCullough would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using a light
emitting diode as an active component in Sillat’s method.
Also, the examiner does not rely upon McCullough for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Sillat and Maric as to claim 4 from which claim 5 depends.
The examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness of the invention claimed in the appellants’
claim 5.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 6-11, 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sillat is affirmed as to claims 1 and
6-11 and reversed as to claims 13 and 14. The rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2 and 12 over Sillat in view of
McCulloch, claims 3 and 4 over Sillat in view of Maric, and
8
Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

claim 5 over Sillat in view of Maric and McCulloch, are
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(effective Sept. 13, 2004).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

)
Terry J. Owens )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Murriel E. Crawford )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Anita Pellman Gross )
Administrative Patent Judge )

9
Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951

Hardness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
P. O. Box 8910
Reston, VA 20195

TJO/jrg

10