Ex Parte Muggli et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 18, 201311881024 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/881,024 07/25/2007 Felix Muggli 9793 7590 11/18/2013 Francis C. Hand, Esq., c/o Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 EXAMINER CHAUDRY, ATIF H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/18/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FELIX MUGGLI, PIERRE SCHAEFFER, and LORENZO GHELFI ____________ Appeal 2011-013524 Application 11/881,024 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013524 Application 11/881,024 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Felix Muggli et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 5, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below. 1. An inlet device comprising an inlet stub having a predetermined cross-sectional area for delivering a flow of fluid; and a horn-shaped passage piece extending from and communicating with said inlet stub for conveying the fluid, said passage piece including a marginal region of expanding cross- sectional area, said marginal region having an outlet opening at an end thereof of greater cross-sectional area than said cross- sectional area of said inlet stub, said marginal region being arcuately disposed about a vertical axis and extending over an arcuate length of less than 180° of a circumference about said axis. App. Br. 18, Claims App’x. References The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Sieverding US 3,374,831 Mar. 26, 1968 Vedrine US 6,997,445 B2 Feb. 14, 2006 Rejections Appellants seek review of the following rejections: I. Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Vedrine; Appeal 2011-013524 Application 11/881,024 3 II. Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vedrine; and III. Claims 2-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vedrine and Sieverding. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. OPINION Rejection I – Anticipation by Vedrine The Examiner found that Vedrine discloses each and every element of claims 1, 5, 10, 13, and 18-20. Ans. 4-6. In particular, the Examiner found that Vedrine discloses a “passage piece 83 including a marginal region of expanding cross-sectional area having an outlet opening at an end of [the] marginal region of greater cross-sectional area than said inlet stub 82.” Id. at 5. Appellants raise several arguments in response to this rejection, including that “[t]here is no disclosure in Vedrine that either arm of the deflection box 80 is of an expanding cross-section.” App. Br. 8-9. We agree. Each of independent claims 1, 5, and 20 recite that the passage piece includes a marginal region “of expanding cross-sectional area” and that the region has an outlet opening of greater cross-sectional area than the inlet stub. The Examiner relied on Figures 1, 4, and 5 of Vedrine as disclosing these elements of the claims (see Ans. 4-5) although only Figure 5 shows elements 83 (horizontal flow) and 82 (axis of penetration of the liquid-vapor mixture flow) (see Vedrine, col. 5, ll. 32-35; fig. 5). Figure 5 shows a deflection box 80 with a deflector element 81. Vedrine, col. 5, ll. Appeal 2011-013524 Application 11/881,024 4 32-35. Vedrine, however, does not disclose any dimensions, specific or relative, for deflection box 80 and does not disclose that the figure is drawn to scale. While a drawing teaches all that it reasonably discloses and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art, see, e.g., In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979), we cannot agree with the Examiner that Figure 5 reasonably reflects a marginal region of expanding cross-sectional area because Figure 5 provides no basis to compare the dimensions of the deflection box at its inlet (the area near element 82) with the dimensions of the deflection box at its outlet (the area near element 83). Figure 5 discloses those portions of the deflection box in a two-dimensional plane, but does not provide additional information from which we can determine dimensions of the structure shown therein, to allow us to determine actual relative dimensions and cross-sectional areas. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue”). Accordingly, because the Examiner’s finding that Vedrine discloses these elements of the claims is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain Rejection I. Rejections II and III Rejections II and III also rely upon Vedrine as disclosing the relative cross-sectional area element of the claims. See Ans. 7-9. Accordingly, for the reasons we explained in the context of Rejection I, we do not sustain Rejections II and III. Appeal 2011-013524 Application 11/881,024 5 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 18-20. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation