Andrew Robert. Campbell et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

13983472 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020)

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.
13/983,472 11/06/2013 Andrew Robert Campbell GJE-022619 US PCT 1416
26294 7590 10/02/2020
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
JARIWALA, CHIRAG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
docketing@tarolli.com
rkline@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW ROBERT CAMPBELL and
JUSTIN RORKE BUCKLAND
Appeal 2018-003757
Application 13/983,472
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16, 21 and 23. Claims 17–20, 22, 24,
and 25 have been canceled. We has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Technology
Partnership PLC, A.K.A. TTP plc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 3, filed
Aug. 30, 2017.
Appeal 2018-003757
Application 13/983,472
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relate[s] generally to a pump for fluid
and, more specifically, to a pump having a substantially disc-shaped cavity
with substantially circular end walls and a side wall and a valve for
controlling the flow of fluid through the pump.” Spec. ¶ 1, Figs. 4A–4D,
5A–5D.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A pump comprising:
a side wall closed at each end by an end wall forming a
substantially circular or elliptical cavity for, in use, containing a
fluid;
at least one actuator, each actuator operatively associated
with one or more of the end walls to cause an oscillatory motion
of the associated end wall(s) whereby, in use, these axial
oscillations of the end wall(s) drive substantially radial
oscillations of the fluid pressure in the cavity wherein a ratio of
a radius of the cavity (a) to a height of the side wall (h) is greater
than 1.7;
two or more apertures in the cavity; and
a valve disposed in at least two of the apertures;
wherein the actuator(s) is/are arranged to be axially
asymmetric such that, in use, a pressure oscillation with at least
one nodal diameter is generated within the cavity, and the
apertures in which a valve is disposed are located at antinodes of
the pressure oscillation.
Appeal 2018-003757
Application 13/983,472
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Reference Name Document ID Pub. Date
Dooley2 US 6,672,847 B2 Jan. 6, 2004
Yamada3 US 7,424,827 B2 Sept. 16, 2008
Miyazawa4 US 2009/0104056 A1 Apr. 23, 2009
Janse Van Rensburg5 US 2010/0310398 A1 Dec. 9, 2010

REJECTION6
Claims 1–16, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Janse Van Rensburg, Miyazawa, Dooley, and Yamada.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is directed to a pump having at least one actuator, “wherein
the actuator(s) is/are arranged to be axially asymmetric such that, in use, a

2 Appellant refers to the Dooley reference as (“the ‘847 patent”). Appeal Br.
9.
3 Appellant refers to the Yamada reference as (“the ‘827 patent”). Id.
4 Appellant refers to the Miyazawa reference as (“the ‘056 publication”). Id.
5 Appellant refers to the Janse Van Rensburg reference as (“the ‘398
publication”). Id. The Examiner refers to the Janse Van Rensburg reference
as (“Rensburg”). Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 6, dated Apr. 19, 2017.
6 It appears that Appellant and the Examiner have come to an agreement to
resolve the rejection of claims 1–4, 14–16, 21, and 23 under nonstatutory
double patenting after the art-based rejections under appeal have been
decided. See Appeal Br. 8–9 (Appellant “accordingly appreciates the
Examiner’s acknowledgement, in the April 19 Office Action, that the duty to
respond to this nonstatutory double patenting rejection is being held in
abeyance until the claims of the present invention have been indicated as
being allowable but for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.”); Final
Act. 2. Accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not
before us for review.
Appeal 2018-003757
Application 13/983,472
4
pressure oscillation with at least one nodal diameter is generated within the
cavity.” Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Janse Van
Rensburg discloses the pump of claim 1 including at least one actuator but
Janse Van Rensburg is “silent on the actuator being arranged axially
asymmetric.” Final Act. 7 (emphasis omitted); see also Ans. 4, 6.7 The
Examiner relies on the teachings of Miyazawa for this limitation with
evidence from Yamada. Final Act. 7–8; see also Ans. 4, 6. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Miyazawa discloses a “piezoelectric actuator” that has
axially asymmetric features. Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 4, 6. Specifically,
according to the Examiner, an “actuator having two electrodes with opposite
polarities is interpreted to be an axially asymmetric actuator” and in
Miyazawa (1) “base member 310 deforms with the expansion and
contraction of piezoelectric layers 320a and 320b”; and (2) electrodes 330a
and 330b apply “an electric field to [] piezoelectric layers [320a and 320b]”
and have “opposite polarities to cause the expansion and contraction of
piezoelectric layers [320a and 320b].” Final Act. 7(citing Miyazawa ¶¶ 44,
55, Fig. 6); see also Ans. 6.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that “a pressure oscillation wave
would have the same shape as that of the displacement wave for the
piezoelectric actuator; thus[,] if a nodal diameter(s) is/are seen in the
displace[ment] wave of the actuator then the pressure oscillation wave
would have the same number of nodal diameter(s) associated.” Final Act.
7–8 (emphases added); see also Ans. 6. The Examiner also cites to Yamada
as extrinsic evidence to show that the shape of the displacement wave of the
actuator has one nodal diameter. Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 6.

7 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Dec. 28, 2017.
Appeal 2018-003757
Application 13/983,472
5
Appellant contends the Examiner’s finding that “a pressure oscillation
wave would have the same shape as that of the displacement wave for the
piezoelectric actuator; thus[,] if a nodal diameter(s) is/are seen in the
displace[ment] wave of the actuator then the pressure oscillation wave
would have the same number of nodal diameter(s) associated” is conclusory
and “an incorrect statement of a principle of resonant cavity operation.”
Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 9;8 Final Act. 7–8.
Moreover, Appellant provides an explanation for why this would not
be the case. Appeal Br. 18–19. Specifically, Appellant states that
the resonant pressure oscillation modes that are possible within
a medium in a cavity depend on the geometry of the cavity, the
frequency of oscillation, and the medium in the cavity. Each
resonant oscillation mode has a different pattern of nodes. An
arbitrary displacement of the wall of a cavity will excite one or
more of these resonant modes with greater or lesser efficiency
depending on the coupling between the displacement of the wall
and each resonant mode of the medium in the cavity. The
resonant pressure oscillation in the medium in the cavity will
therefore not generally have the same mode-shape as the
arbitrary displacement of a driving wall. An illustrative
analogous example is that of a drumskin, whose possible modes
of vibration are defined only by the drum construction. When
struck, the drumskin resonates in one or more of these modes
dependent on the coupling between the strike and each mode. It
is not the case that a drumskin will vibrate resonantly in an
arbitrary mode-shape that matches how it is struck.
Id.
Appellant has the better position here. As discussed above, we
understand the Examiner to be citing to the teachings of Yamada to establish
that the shape of the displacement wave of the actuator of Figure 6 of
Miyazawa has one nodal diameter. Final Act. 8 (“In Miyazawa, the

8 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Feb. 23, 2018.
Appeal 2018-003757
Application 13/983,472
6
displacement wave of the actuator can be seen in fig. 6. This wave has 1
nodal diameter, as evidenced by Yamada (in fig. 21[)]” and “[a]s evidenced
by Yamada (Col. 1, lines 55-60), the displacement of the piezoelectric
actuator in a micro pump affects the throughput of the fluid in the pump.”)
(emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 21 (Yamada “teaches the requirement
of a displacement which is sufficiently large for the pump to work.”)
(emphasis added). Stated differently, the Examiner looks to the teachings of
Yamada as extrinsic evidence to establish that the shape of the displacement
wave of the actuator of Figure 6 of Miyazawa has one nodal diameter.
However, the Examiner does not direct us to any discussion in either
Miyazawa or Yamada or provide any technical reasoning to support a
finding that a “pressure oscillation” wave would necessarily have the same
shape as that of a “displacement” wave for a piezoelectric actuator and thus,
that the nodal diameter of the “displacement” wave of the actuator would
necessarily be the same as that of the “pressure oscillation” wave. See Final
Act. 7–8.
Additionally, in response to Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner
cites to paragraph 49 of Janse Van Rensburg, which refers to mode-shape
matching between the cavity and the actuator. Ans. 8; see also Janse Van
Rensburg ¶ 49. The Examiner then extends this teaching of Janse Van
Rensburg to conclude that if a skilled artisan desired to excite any other
resonant mode of the cavity then he/she would drive the actuator in a mode
that ensured similar matching. Ans. 8; Id. (A skilled artisan “could desire to
have any other resonant pressure oscillation mode in the cylindrical cavity of
the pump of [Janse Van Rensburg] out of the possible resonant pressure
oscillation modes that the cavity would have” and “thus vibrate the actuator
Appeal 2018-003757
Application 13/983,472
7
at a mode that is similar to the desire resonant pressure oscillation mode.”);
see also Janse Van Rensburg ¶ 49.
Based on these teachings from Janse Van Rensburg, the Examiner
then asserts that by looking at Figure 6 of Miyazawa, a skilled artisan would
infer that Miyazawa’s actuator “would enable a differential pressure curve,
similar in shape to that of the vibrational curve of the actuator in the cavity
of the pump.” Ans. 8–9; see also id. at 8 (The Examiner “believes that
vibration mode of the actuator [of Figure 6 of Miyazawa] would enable a
differential pressure curve, similar in shape to that of the vibrational curve of
the actuator, to be generated within the cavity of Miyazawa.”).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings are conclusory
and are “not supported by the teachings of the cited references.” Reply Br.
9. In particular, the Examiner does not establish adequately how in applying
the mode-shape matching teachings of Janse Van Rensburg to Miyazawa’s
Figure 6, a skilled artisan would necessarily infer that Miyazawa’s actuator,
“would enable a differential pressure curve, similar in shape to that of the
vibrational curve of the actuator in the cavity of the pump.” See Ans. 8–9;
see also Reply Br. 9. (“[T]he Examiner cites to [] portions of [Janse Van
Rensburg,] which refer to the need for mode-shape matching between the
cavity and the actuator.” “The Examiner then leaps to assert that the
actuator of [Miyazawa] ‘would enable a differential pressure curve, similar
in shape to that of the vibrational curve of the actuator in the cavity of the
pump.’”).
We also agree with Appellant that “[t]he fact that mode[-]shape
matching may be desirable does not mean that an actuator having a
particular mode[-]shape will [necessarily] generate a pressure oscillation in a
resonant cavity with the same or a similar mode[-]shape.” Reply Br. 9
Appeal 2018-003757
Application 13/983,472
8
(italics added). As correctly pointed out by Appellant, “[i]f this were the
case, then the condition of mode-shape matching would be irrelevant,
because mode-shape matching would result naturally in the case of any
arbitrary actuator motion.” Id. (emphases added). Consequently, for the
above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish adequately by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Janse Van
Rensburg, Miyazawa, Yamada, and Dooley disclose the pump of claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–16, 21, and 23 as unpatentable over Janse Van Rensburg,
Miyazawa, Dooley, and Yamada
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1–16, 21, 23 103(a) Janse Van
Rensburg,
Miyazawa,
Dooley, Yamada
1–16, 21, 23

REVERSED