10381031 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Bates

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 30, 2012

10381031 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 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. 10/381,031 09/08/2003 Ian Richard Joseph Bates 041618-73 7179 22204 7590 01/30/2012 NIXON PEABODY, LLP 401 9TH STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2128 EXAMINER KING, BRADLEY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte IAN RICHARD JOSEPH BATES ____________________ Appeal 2009-010288 Application 10/381,031 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT, and EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ian Richard Joseph Bates (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-4 and 9. Claims 5, 6, and 8 have been canceled, and claim 7 has been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2009-010288 Application 10/381,031 2 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A vehicle air braking system having a compressor, an air dryer downstream of said compressor, a non-return valve downstream of said air dryer, and an air consumer circuit downstream of the air dryer, the system having control means to suspend the compressor on demand to permit backflow of air under pressure from the air consumer circuit through the air dryer to a drain valve, the control means comprising a regeneration valve, and a command valve having an inlet connected to the air consumer circuit, and a supply outlet operably connected to the drain valve, wherein the regeneration valve is operated in direct response to connection of the inlet and supply outlets of the command valve to cause regeneration backflow, wherein the system includes a compressor unloader and an unloader valve, the compressor being suspendable via said compressor unloader, wherein said unloader valve has an inlet connected to the air consumer circuit on the air consumer circuit side of the non-return valve, and an outlet connected to the compressor unloader, said command valve and said unloader valve being arranged on a common flow line extending from a position downstream of said non-return valve and upstream of said air consumer circuit, and said unloader valve being resiliently biased to a closed position and movable to an open position thereby connecting the inlet to the outlet. THE REJECTIONS The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elamin (US 5,145,495, issued Sept. 8, 1992; hereinafter “Elamin ‘495”), Elamin (US 5,378,266, issued Jan. 3, 1995; hereinafter “Elamin ‘266”), and Krieder (US 5,592,754, issued Jan. 14, 1997); and Appeal 2009-010288 Application 10/381,031 3 2. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elamin ‘495, Elamin ‘266, Krieder, and Folchert (US 6,098,967, issued Aug. 8, 2000). OPINION Appellant’s arguments against the first rejection are not commensurate in scope with the claim language (App. Br. 7), are based on a misunderstanding of the Examiner’s finding regarding the recited unloader valve and the unloader (id. at 6-7; Ans. 4), and fail to address the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and rationale underlying the conclusion of obviousness (App. Br. 7-8 (Appellant attacking a non-asserted “substitution” rationale)). We determine that the Examiner, at pages 5-8 of the Answer, has adequately responded to each of Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt those responses as the basis of our decision affirming the first rejection. As to the second rejection, Appellant merely relies on the unpersuasive arguments directed to the first rejection. App. Br. 10. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 and 9 is affirmed. 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 nlk