13130712 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2017)

Ex Parte Aixala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 24, 2017

13130712 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2017)

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. 13/130,712 05/23/2011 LucAixala 000009-549 1035 51707 7590 04/26/2017 WRB-IP LLP 801 N. Pitt Street Suite 123 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER CASS, JEAN PAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2017 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): HARRY@WRB-IP.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUC AIXALA, CHRISTOPHE LONG, and PHILIPPE LE BRUSQ Appeal 2015-000910 Application 13/130,712 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Luc Aixala et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—14. A hearing was held on April 19, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Vehicle comprising an air compressor system having at least one compressor for supplying compressed air to an air Appeal 2015-000910 Application 13/130,712 consuming circuit, wherein the vehicle comprises means for determining that the vehicle is coasting, wherein the compressor system is configured to be controlled so that the compressor delivers compressed air at a first power rate and at least at a second higher power rate, and the compressor system is configured to be controlled so that the compressor delivers compressed air at the second higher power rate when the determining means determines that the vehicle is coasting. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Graber US 6,534,958 B1 Mar. 18, 2003 Severinsky US 6,554,088 B2 Apr. 29, 2003 Chan US 2004/0065676 A1 Apr. 8, 2004 Rush US 2004/0173396 A1 Sept. 9, 2004 Duchet US 2008/0030071 A1 Feb. 7, 2008 Bates US 7,344,201 B1 Mar. 18, 2008 Sabelstrom WO 98/07588 Feb. 26, 1998 Gustavsson WO 98/17493 Apr. 30, 1998 Nakamura WO 2006/040975 A1 Apr. 20, 2006 Louckes1 EP 1,932,704 A2 June 18, 2008 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sabelstrom.2 1 We note that Severinsky is the first named inventor in this patent publication and Louckes is the second named inventor. It appears that the Examiner refers to the reference as Louckes to distinguish it from US 6,554,088 to Severinsky. 2 This is a new ground of rejection set forth in the Answer. 2 Appeal 2015-000910 Application 13/130,712 II. Claims 1, 2, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom and Nakamura.3 III. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom, Gustavsson, and Nakamura.4 IV. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom, Nakamura, and Bates. V. Claims 4, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom, Nakamura, and Rush.5 VI. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom, Nakamura, Rush, and Severinsky. VII. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom, Nakamura, and Chan. VIII. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom, Nakamura, and Duchet. 3 Although the rejection of claims 2 and 3 is set forth separately from the rejection of claim 1 in the Final Action, these claims are rejected under the same ground of rejection (i.e., Sabelstrom and Nakamura). See Final Act. 3— 13. 4 Although the rejection of claims 9 and 10 is set forth separately from the second rejection of claims 1, 2, and 13 in the Final Action, these claims are subject to the same ground of rejection. See Final Act. 14—22, 33—41. Moreover, unlike the examiner, we do not consider the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection to be significant. See, e.g., In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,496 (CCPA1961). 5 Although the rejection of claim 7 is set forth separately from the rejection of claims 4 and 5 in the Final Action, these claims are subject to the same ground of rejection. See Final Act. 25—27, 29. 3 Appeal 2015-000910 Application 13/130,712 IX. Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom, Nakamura, and Louckes.6 X. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabelstrom and Graber. DISCUSSION Independent claims 1 and 13 require an air compressor system “configured to be controlled so that the compressor delivers compressed air at a first power rate and at least at a second higher power rate.” Appeal Br. 17, 19. The Examiner finds that Sabelstrom discloses such a system. See Ans. 7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Sabelstrom discloses a first power rate that is zero because the pump is off and a second higher power rate when the pump is on. See id. Appellants contend that Sabelstrom’s “compressor system is not controllable to deliver air at a first power rate or at a second power rate.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). In support of this contention, Appellants note that “[t]he system of [Sabelstrom] is only controllable to deliver air or to not deliver air, in an on/off manner.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellants are correct. As discussed supra, claims 1 and 13 not only require first and second power rates, they require delivery of compressed air at those power rates. If the power rate is zero, then compressed air is not delivered. Accordingly, the claimed first power rate cannot fairly be read on Sabelstrom’s disclosure of a power rate of zero. Thus, the Examiner’s finding is in error. 6 Although the rejection of claim 14 is set forth separately from the rejection of claim 12 in the Final Action, these claims are subject to the same ground of rejection. See Final Act. 44—55. 4 Appeal 2015-000910 Application 13/130,712 All of the Examiner’s rejections rely on the Examiner’s finding that Sabelstrom discloses first and second power rates as claimed. See Final Act. 3—62; Ans. 19—22. Thus, our determination that this finding is in error is dispositive as to all claims and rejections involved in this appeal. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 are REVERSED. REVERSED 5