14854043 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

Daniel T. Mudd et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2019

14854043 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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. 14/854,043 09/15/2015 Daniel T. MUDD RENO-021-US-CON 8086 84212 7590 08/02/2019 The Belles Group, P.C. 337 S. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 EXAMINER SANCHEZ-MEDINA, REINALDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2019 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): uspto@thebellesgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL T. MUDD and PATTI J. MUDD Appeal 2019-000678 Application 14/854,043 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Reno Technologies, Inc., appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13, 16, 17, and 21. Final Act. 1. Claims 14 and 15 were canceled during prosecution and claims 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant is the real party in interest, Reno Technologies, Inc. (“Assignee”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, and having a place of business at 1105 N. Market St., Suite 1300, Wilmington, DE 19801, as set forth in the assignment recorded in the U.S. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2019-000678 Application 14/854,043 2 18–20 are allowed. See App. Br. 2, 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed “to gas delivery systems, and more specifically, to delivering a process gas using a remote pressure transducer.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A control apparatus for delivery of a process gas, comprising: an inlet conduit to receive the process gas; a valve fluidly coupled to the inlet conduit and alterable between an open condition and a closed condition, the valve having a first conductance and being downstream of the inlet conduit; a characterized restrictor inserted into an opening of the valve, said characterized restrictor being adjacent to and in series with the valve, the characterized restrictor having a second conductance; and an outlet conduit to exhaust a controlled flow of the process gas passing through the characterized restrictor; wherein a ratio of the first conductance to the second conductance is 10:1 or higher. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Balazy Doyle US 6,422,256 B1 US 2006/0185746 A1 July 23, 2002 Aug. 24, 2006 REJECTIONS Claims 1–11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Balazy. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2019-000678 Application 14/854,043 3 Claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Balazy and Doyle. Final Act. 6. OPINION The Examiner bases all of the rejections upon an improper interpretation of Balazy. Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 12 recites various components of a control apparatus for delivery of a process gas and also cite a specific variable, for example a conductance ratio in claim 1 and certain chamber volumes in claims 9 and 12. Appellant generally does not dispute the specifics of the apparatus components in Balazy, but does take issue with the Examiner’s determination that each of these three specific variables would be a result-effective variable thus subject to routine optimization as asserted by the Examiner. See, e.g., App. Br. 9. In order for a variable to be subject to routine optimization, that variable must first be recognized as a result-effective variable. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977). The Examiner asserts that the claims are obvious because one of skill in the art, through routine optimization could achieve the recited variables found in each of claims 1, 9, and 12. See, e.g., Final Act. 3. The Examiner, however provides no evidence that the prior art recognizes any of these three variables as result- effective. Regarding claim 1, for example, the Examiner states “that both inherently have a conductance since a fluid is transmitting through both the valve when in an open position and the restrictor.” Ans. 7. Although such conductances may be inherent, Balazy does not recognize any significance to the ratio of the two conductances at issue and, in fact, does not even disclose a value for these conductances. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner “engages in improper hindsight in concluding that one would Appeal 2019-000678 Application 14/854,043 4 optimize a parameter which appears to be previously unrecognized as having any meaningful impact on the functioning of a mass flow controller.” App. Br. 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8. The Examiner makes the same unfounded determinations that the recitations in claims 9 and 12 are also result-effective variables subject to routine optimization and we reverse these rejections as well. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED. More specifically, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11 and 21 over Balazy and claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 over Balazy and Doyle. DECISION SUMMARY REVERSED