Andrew Michael. Leach et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 25, 2019

13662595 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2019)

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.
13/662,595 10/29/2012 Andrew Michael Leach 233939-9 1119
61604 7590 07/25/2019
GE Healthcare, IP Department
9900 W. Innovation Drive
Mail Code RP2131
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
EXAMINER
ALOSH, TAREQ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
GEHealthcare@anaqua.com
HCTechnologies@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDREW MICHAEL LEACH,
JAMES RICHARD TRIGGER, and
JOHN ARTHUR URBAHN
____________________

Appeal 2018-009007
Application 13/662,5951
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–9, and 11–15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-009007
Application 13/662,595

2
According to Appellants, their invention relates to “improve[d] . . .
cooling systems.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on
appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed
claims.
1. An apparatus comprising:
an airlock chamber;
a cryogenic chamber;
an equilibrator positioned between the airlock chamber
and the cryogenic chamber configured to allow for passage of a
sample along to the cryogenic chamber;
a first tube positioned between the airlock chamber and the
equilibrator;
a second tube positioned between the equilibrator and the
cryogenic chamber; and
a cooling unit thermally coupled to the equilibrator, further
wherein the airlock chamber, the first tube, the equilibrator, the
second tube, and the cryogenic chamber define a sample travel
path, further wherein the first tube and the second tube are
parallel to each other and laterally offset from the equilibrator.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 5–9, 11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Urbahn et al. (US 2008/0242974 A1, pub.
Oct. 2, 2008) (hereinafter “Urbahn”) and Sorsby
(US 2006/0207265 A1, pub. Sept. 21, 2006);
II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Urbahn,
Sorsby, and “Advantages of Corrugated Tubes,” (2015); and
Appeal 2018-009007
Application 13/662,595

3
III. Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Urbahn, Sorsby, and Jones et al. (US 2005/0188705 A1
pub. Sept. 1, 2005) (hereinafter “Jones”).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a
cooling unit thermally coupled to the equilibrator, further wherein the
airlock chamber, the first tube, the equilibrator, the second tube, and the
cryogenic chamber define a sample travel path, further wherein the first tube
and the second tube are parallel to each other and laterally offset from the
equilibrator.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner
relies on a finding that Sorsby’s Figure 1 discloses first and second tubes in
an “offset configuration,” as claimed, as a reason to modify Urbahn’s
configuration. See, e.g., Answer 7–11 (reproducing and annotating Sorsby
Fig. 1). We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner errs by
finding that Sorsby discloses a second tube laterally offset from a first tube,
with an equilibrator therebetween, as claimed. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 5–6.
This is because Sorsby discloses that bellows arrangement 38 (on
which the Examiner relies to disclose the claimed equilibrator (see, e.g.,
Non-Final Action 4)) is connected to “an access hole in . . . vessel 10” and is
not connected to a second tube (Appeal Br. 5–6; Sorsby Fig. 1). In an
annotated version of Sorsby’s Figure 1, the Examiner appears to point to an
element numbered as 58 as apparently disclosing a boundary of a second
tube that is “offset” from a first tube. Answer 7. Sorsby describes
element 58 as an electrical cable rather than a boundary of a second tube,
Appeal 2018-009007
Application 13/662,595

4
however, and clearly illustrates that the electrical cable is inside of cryogen
vessel 10. Sorsby ¶ 13, Fig. 1. Therefore, the Examiner does not support
adequately that Sorsby discloses a second tube, as claimed.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5–9, 11, 14, and 15 that depend
from claim 1, and which the Examiner rejects with the independent claim.

Rejections II and III
The Examiner does not rely on either Advantages of Corrugated
Tubes or Jones to remedy the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1’s
rejection. Thus, we do not sustain either of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 4, 12, and 13 that depend from claim 1.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4–
9, and 11–15.

REVERSED