Ex Parte Seppala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

10481621 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

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.
10/481,621 08/12/2004 Kari Seppala 06267.0114 8286
22852 7590 11/29/2012
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
OSTRUP, CLINTON T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3771
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2012 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 KARI SEPPALA, TERHI MATTILA, KALLE PURMA, and
MARKKU HARKONEN
____________________

Appeal 2010-008219
Application 10/481,621
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008219
Application 10/481,621

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-10. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on November 16,
2012. We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal:
1. An inhaler for administering powder
by inhalation, comprising
an air conduit defined by a wall the air
conduit including a mouthpiece;
a dosing means adapted to provide a dose of
powder to the air conduit;
a primary air inlet for providing a stream of
air adapted to disperse a dose of powder from the
dosing means;
wherein the wall of the air conduit, which is
located downstream from the dosing means, is
provided with a secondary air inlet which is
positioned adjacent to the dosing means and
extends towards the mouthpiece and covers at least
20% of the portion of the air conduit which is
located downstream from the dosing means,
whereby the powder dispersed form the dosing
means is subjected to additional turbulence along
the portion of the air conduit which is covered by
the secondary air inlet.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Appeal 2010-008219
Application 10/481,621

3
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Koskela (WO 00/64520; pub. Nov. 2, 2000) and
Priestly (US 2,587,215; iss. Feb. 26, 1952).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-10 – Indefiniteness
Claim 1 recites:
wherein the wall of the air conduit, which is
located downstream from the dosing means, is
provided with a secondary air inlet which is
positioned adjacent to the dosing means and
extends towards the mouthpiece and covers at least
20% of the portion of the air conduit which is
located downstream from the dosing means.
Emphasis added. The Examiner stated "it is unclear which portion of the air
conduit is being referred to and if 'the portion' makes up the entire air
conduit or some 'portion' of the conduit." Ans. 3.
Appellants contend that the second recitation of "which is located
downstream from the dosing means" in claim 1 indicates that the air conduit
is located downstream from the dosing means. App. Br. 9. Appellants
appear to contend that the term "portion" has the meaning of "length" and
propose a claim amendment to make this change. App. Br. 9-10.1
Appellants also argue that "'the portion' refers to the portion of the air
conduit that is located downstream from the dosing means." Reply Br. 2.
Figure 2 of the Appellants' application appears to show that air
conduit 13 is located entirely downstream from the "dosing means." See

1 We note that the Specification states "Suitably the secondary air inlet, e.g.
a elongate slot, covers at least 10 %, preferably at least 20 %, more
preferably at least 30 %, of the length of the air conduit downstream from
the dosing means." Spec. 5, ll. 22-24 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2010-008219
Application 10/481,621

4
also Spec. 8, ll. 4-5 ("The air conduit (13) is defined, downstream from the
metering drum (2), by an air conduit wall (23).") In light of this disclosure,
there appears to be no "portion" of the air conduit 13 that is not located
downstream from the dosing means. We agree with the Examiner that the
meaning of "portion" in claim 1 is unclear, and sustain the rejection of claim
1, and claims 2, 5, and 8-10, which depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-10 - Obviousness
The Examiner found Koskela discloses an inhaler for administering
powder by inhalation, comprising a primary air inlet 17, and a slot
(secondary air inlet) between the opening 16 of the cylindrical body and a
partition wall 19 of the mouthpiece, and positioned adjacent the dosing
means, whereby "the powder dispersed from the dosing means is subjected
to additional turbulence along the length of the secondary air inlet." Ans. 4
(citing Koskela, p. 5, ll. 30-34). The Examiner found Koskela does not
teach that the secondary air inlet is downstream from the dosing means, and
that it covers at least 20% of the portion of the air conduit downstream from
the dosing means. Ans. 4.
The Examiner found Priestly discloses an inhaler for delivering
powders having a downstream secondary air inlet 36 that causes further
mixing of the powders through the tube (33). Ans. 4 (citing Priestly col. 4,
ll. 39-51; fig. 4). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Koskela's secondary air inlet by
placing it downstream of the dosing means as taught by Priestly, to provide
further mixing of the powder formulation prior to inhalation by a patient.
Ans. 5. The Examiner also determined, regarding the size of the secondary
Appeal 2010-008219
Application 10/481,621

5
air inlet, that discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine
experimentation and skill, and that choosing a secondary air inlet that covers
at least 20% of the portion of the air conduit is an obvious design choice.
Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that Koskela does not disclose or suggest "a
secondary air inlet that provides 'additional turbulence along the portion of
the air conduit which is covered by the secondary air inlet,'" as claimed.
App. Br. 10. Appellants contend that Koskela's slot is the primary air inlet
that empties the dosing means, and is analogous to Appellants' primary air
inlet. App. Br. 11. Appellants also contend that the absence of any
secondary air inlet in Koskela is shown by the absence of an air inlet or
break in the air conduit wall 19. App. Br. 11 (referring to Koskela fig. 2
reproduced at App. Br. 10).
Claim 1 recites "the wall of the air conduit . . . is provided with a
secondary air inlet." Emphasis added. We agree with Appellants that
Koskela does not show an air inlet provided in wall 19 of air channel 12, and
that the Examiner did not identify any description in Koskela that pertains to
a secondary air inlet provided in wall 19. App. Br. 12.
Appellants further contend that, even if the slot between opening 16
and partition wall 19 in Koskela were considered a secondary air inlet,
moving this secondary air inlet downstream according to Priestly would
completely disable Koskela's device, because the slot is designed to provide
a strong aligned stream of air to the dosing recess to empty it, that is, the slot
is a primary air inlet. App. Br. 13 (citing Koskela, p. 5, ll. 31-34).

Appeal 2010-008219
Application 10/481,621

6
Koskela discloses:
The intaken air is led to a slot between the opening
(16) of the cylindrical body and a partition wall
(19) of the mouthpiece. The slot, which is
preferably moulded as a nozzle, provides strongly
aligned stream of air to the dosing recess blowing
the powder out from the dosing recess into the air
channel without leaving any residue.
Koskela, p. 5, ll. 30-34 (emphasis added). Appellants contend that placing
Koskela's slot away from the dosing means as taught by Priestly (citing
Priestly, fig. 4) would result in the failure of Koskela's device to empty the
dosing means. App. Br. 13. Appellants' contentions are persuasive.
Koskela's slot is located between opening 16 and partition wall 19 for
"blowing the powder out from the dosing recess into the air channel."
Emphasis added. This powder would appear to be blown into the upstream
end of the air channel once blown from the dosing recess. The Examiner did
not provide a basis in fact that placing Koskela's slot downstream of the
dosing means would allow the slot to still provide its above-noted function
in the inhaler.
The Examiner also stated "the area between 16 and 19 of Koskela is
merely enlarged and elongated by the modification of the instant
invention[]" (Ans. 9 (emphasis added)), and that "the examiner has merely
suggested modifying the opening formed between 16 & 19 of Koskela with
the opening of Priestly" (Ans. 10). However, claim 1 requires the wall of
the air conduit to be provided with the secondary air inlet. Koskela does not
disclose that the slot is provided in partition wall 19. As such, the Examiner
has not shown that modifying the "opening" between the opening 16 and
Appeal 2010-008219
Application 10/481,621

7
partition wall 19 would result in Koskela's inhaler including the claimed
secondary air inlet provided in the wall of the air conduit.
In view of the above, we determine that the Examiner did not
articulate an adequate reason with a rational underpinning as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Koskela in view of Priestly to
result in the claimed inhaler. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 5, and 8-10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is AFFIRMED, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls