Ex Parte Pierre et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 4, 201311798974 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 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. 11/798,974 05/18/2007 Joseph Pierre 0107/0044 7669 21395 7590 11/04/2013 LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO 717 NORTH FAYETTE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER BAUER, CASSEY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/04/2013 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 JOSEPH PIERRE, RACHEL STARR, and DAVID G. ROOME ____________________ Appeal 2012-000417 Application 11/798,974 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000417 Application 11/798,974 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 4, 9-12 and 16-18. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to an air convection warmer with noise reduction filter. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Apparatus for outputting temperature regulated air to an inflatable blanket at a reduced noise level, comprising: a housing having an air inlet and an air outlet; an air conditioning unit; a blower for directing air from said air inlet to said air conditioning unit and from there to said air outlet to inflate the blanket; and an air filter interposed between said air inlet and said air outlet to filter the air from said air inlet, said air filter having a base and a filtering element extending circumferentially from the base to form an enclosed interior cavity wherein air intercept means is fitted for disrupting the flow of air traversing in the interior cavity of said air filter as the filtered air is provided to said air conditioning unit, whereby noise generated by the flow of forced air in said housing and attributable to at least said blower is reduced. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cocker Gibel US 2,968,359 US 3,811,251 Jan. 17, 1961 May 21, 1974 Applicant Acknowledged Prior Art (AAPA): Application Figures 1 and 2 Appeal 2012-000417 Application 11/798,974 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 9-11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Gibel. Ans. 4. Claims 4, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Gibel and Cocker III. Ans. 5-6. OPINION Regarding the recited “intercept means” the Examiner reasons: Claims in pending applications are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In the instant application, the word “intercept” is interpreted to mean, “to deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of” as provided in the first entry at thefreedictionary.com. Ans. 6. However, our reviewing court reminds us that: the “broadest reasonable interpretation” that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in [35 U.S.C. § 112] paragraph six. Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F. 3d 1189, 1194-5 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2181. The Examiner’s analysis is improperly focused on the intercepting function and not the structure for performing it described in the Specification. Neither the collector 24 nor the baffle 37 in Gibel are the same structure disclosed in Appellants’ Specification (partitions 146a-c situated as in fig. 1), and the Examiner provides no reasoning or analysis as to why they would be considered equivalents thereof. Thus, we must conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish that the prior art teaches Appeal 2012-000417 Application 11/798,974 4 “air intercept means” as recited in each of the independent claims involved in this appeal. Cocker is not relied upon by the Examiner to cure any of the deficiencies discussed above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation