Ex Parte Brown et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201612758492 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121758,492 04/12/2010 28395 7590 09/28/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR LaRon Michelle Brown 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 81201942 5068 EXAMINER PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2016 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@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LARON MICHELLE BROWN, ANN MARIE STRACCIA, and GREGORYLATOWSKI Appeal2015-000547 1 Application 12/758,4922 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES A. WORTH, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 21, 2014 ), Supplemental Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 21, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 8, 2014), and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 22, 2013) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 12, 2014). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC (Appeal Br. 1 ). Appeal2015-000547 Application 12/758,492 Introduction Appellants' disclosure relates to a burner system and a flame torch (Spec. 1, 11. 6-12). Claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A burner system comprising: a burner assembly including: a distribution outlet having a plurality of openings; and an electrode spaced apart from the distribution outlet; and a supply unit configured to provide a gas/air mixture to the burner assembly via a hose wherein the gas/air mixture has substantially laminar flow through the plurality of openings; and wherein the electrode provides an electrical arc to ignite the gas/air mixture for a predetermined period of time. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Re} ections on Appeal3 The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following rejections: 1. Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek (US 3,941,116, iss. Mar. 2, 1976) and Burke (US 4,325,689, iss. Apr. 20, 1982). 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 7, 17, and 21 (Ans. 16). 2 Appeal2015-000547 Application 12/758,492 2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Hansen (US 5,798,601, iss. Aug. 25, 1998). 3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Story (US 6,460,536 B2, iss. Oct. 8, 2002). 4. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Geiger (DE 102005059095 Al, pub. June 14, 2007). 5. Claims 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Nonaka (JP 2003121545 A, iss. Apr. 23, 2003). 6. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek, Burke, and Ochiai (JP 1110064 A, iss. June 24, 1997). 7. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek and Bonnema (US 5,857,262, iss. Jan. 12, 1999). 8. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek, Bonnema, and Hansen. 9. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek, Bonnema, and Peterson (US 5,035,607, iss. July 30, 1991). 10. Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Placek, Bonnema, and Soanes (US 2008/0090193 Al, pub. Apr. 17, 2008). 3 Appeal2015-000547 Application 12/758,492 11. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soanes in view of Bonnema. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 8-10 Appellants argue that the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fails to disclose "laminar flow," as recited in independent claim 1, i.e., "wherein the gas/air mixture has substantially laminar flow through the plurality of openings." Appellants state that the word "laminar" is not present in Placek (Appeal Br. 4). The Examiner finds that although Placek does not use the term "laminar flow," Placek describes the gas flow in the same terms as the Specification. The Examiner observes that the Specification only describes "substantially laminar flow" when it discloses that "the manifold cavity 86 and distribution outlet 88 may distribute the gas/air mixture at a substantially even pressure and/or flow rate through the distribution outlet 88 which may help provide laminar flow of the gas/air mixture" (Final Act. 3 (quoting Spec. 8)). The Examiner finds that Lambert (U.S. 3,040,805, iss. June 26, 1982) discloses the same type of flow described in the Specification, i.e., substantially uniform pressure (see Lambert, col. 3, lines 23-33). The Examiner determines that this disclosure of Lambert is incorporated by reference in Placek where it discloses: The type of tool to which the invention relates is disclosed in US. Pat. Nos. 3,040,805, 3,129,749, 3,198,240 and 3,814,513. Such a device generally bums a fuel such as propane from a pressurized source mixed with air in a combustion chamber which is defined by an inner mantle or gas diffuser and an outer grid across the face of the tool. (Placek, col. 1, 11. 9-14). 4 Appeal2015-000547 Application 12/758,492 First, as a matter of claim construction, we agree with the Examiner's interpretation of "substantially laminar flow." We note that the claim does not simply recite "laminar flow," but modifies the recitation of "laminar flow" with the term "substantially." Whether or not "laminar" has a fixed meaning as a term of art, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the Specification for an understanding of when flow is "substantially laminar." We further agree with the Examiner that the Specification indicates that flow of the air/ gas mixture will be considered to be "substantially laminar" when there is either substantially even pressure or a substantially even flow rate through the distribution outlet. See Spec. 8, 11. 10-14. As to Placek, we agree with the Examiner that Placek specifically incorporates the description of the burner tool of Lambert. Because the burner tool of Lambert, as incorporated into Placek, possesses and exhibits flow of the gas/air mixture in the same manner as the Specification, i.e., at a substantially even pressure, we determine that Placek meets the limitation "substantially laminar flow," within the meaning of independent claim 1, i.e., "wherein the gas/air mixture has substantially laminar flow through the plurality of openings." We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of independent claim 1. Appellants do not argue the patentability of claims 2---6 and 8-10 separately from independent claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of claims 2---6 and 8-10, for similar reasons as for independent claim 1, from which they depend. 5 Appeal2015-000547 Application 12/758,492 Independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-14, 16, 18, and 19 Appellants' arguments for the patentability of independent claim 11 are similar to that for the patentability of independent claim 1, and we are unpersuaded for similar reasons. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under § 103 of independent claim 11. Appellants do not argue the patentability of claims 12-14, 16, 18, and 19 separately from independent claim 11. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of claims 12-14, 16, 18, and 19, for similar reasons as for independent claim 11, from which they depend. Independent claim 20 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the prior art relied on by the Examiner fails to disclose detecting a speed of gas flow and terminating flow upon sensation of a temperature exceeding a pre- determined temperature, as recited in independent claim 20, i.e., "detecting a temperature of a workpiece with a sensor provided with the burner assembly and stopping gas flow when the temperature exceeds a predetermined temperature value" (Appeal Br. 11 ). Appellants assert that the Examiner fails to point with specificity to the prior art. The Examiner relies on Soanes (i-fi-f 77 and 129) (Final Act. 18). Paragraph 77 of Soanes discloses a control that allows manual or automatic adjusting of a heat source when the temperature rises above a threshold, and paragraph 129 of Soanes discloses terminating the heat source. We agree with the Examiner that it would have therefore been obvious to modify the burner of Bonnema (e.g., Figs. 1--4) with the teachings of Soanes to terminate the gas flow in Bonnema when a temperature is exceeded based on the teachings of Soanes (Final Act. 18). 6 Appeal2015-000547 Application 12/758,492 We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103 of independent claim 20. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation