Ex Parte Cernat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14378789 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/378,789 08/14/2014
27350 7590 08/02/2018
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Radu-Marian Cernat
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.
2012P02781 4031
EXAMINER
BOLTON, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
boxsa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RADU-MARIAN CERNAT,
VOLKER LEHMANN,
and ANDRZEJ NOWAKOWSKI
Appeal2017-011421
Application 14/378,789 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicant, is said to be Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft of Miinchen, Germany. Appeal Brief dated October 27,
2016 ("Br."), at 1.
Appeal2017-011421
Application 14/378,789
Representative claim 10 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
10. A switchgear arrangement, comprising:
an interrupter unit having first and second switching
contact pieces movably disposed relative to one another;
an arcing gas channel issuing from an arc gap to be
formed between said first and second switching contact pieces,
passing through said interrupter unit and connecting said arc
gap to a surrounding environment of said interrupter unit;
mutually encompassing elements at least sectionally
delimiting said arcing gas channel in a form of a ring channel,
said elements including a first body having one end clamped as
a pipe connection piece at a support distal from said arc gap and
a free end projecting towards said arc gap, said first body
having a lateral surface side formed with at least one cutout;
a sheath encompassing said first body and spanning said
free end of said first body, and said sheath covering said at least
one cutout in the lateral surface side of said first body in a
radial direction; and
a housing surrounding said interrupter unit, wherein said
sheath is supported on said housing and electrically insulated
therefrom.
Br. 12.
The following grounds of rejection are maintained on appeal:
(1) claims 10, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sturzenegger et al. 2 in view ofNowakowski; 3
2 US 4,471,187, issued September 11, 1984 ("Sturzenegger").
3 US 7,041,928 B2, issued May 9, 2006 ("Nowakowski").
2
Appeal2017-011421
Application 14/378,789
(2) claims 12, 13, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Sturzenegger in view of Nowakowski, and further in view
of Bose et al.; 4 and
(3) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Sturzenegger in view of Bose.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejections (1) and (2)
The Examiner finds Sturzenegger discloses a switchgear arrangement
as recited in claim 10 with the exception that sheath 46 does not span the
free end of first body 22. Non-Final Act. 3; 5 see also Sturzenegger, col. 5,
11. 14--16 (disclosing that "[t]he free end of the cylindrical portion 22 extends
past the thin-wall tube or tube member 46"). The Examiner finds
Nowakowski discloses an electrical switching device wherein sheath 11
spans the free end of first body 7. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to substitute the sheath of Sturzenegger with Nowakowski's sheath. Id.
The Appellants argue that Nowakowski's element 11 is functionally
and structurally identical to first body 22, not sheath 46, in Sturzenegger.
Br. 6, 7. Therefore, the Appellants argue that no reasonable combination of
Sturzenegger and Nowakowski would lead to the switchgear arrangement
recited in claim 10. Br. 8.
The Appellants' argument is supported by the record. The
Appellants' Figure is reproduced below:
4 US 2012/0261383 Al, published October 18, 2012 ("Bose").
5 Non-Final Office Action dated May 19, 2016.
3
Appeal2017-011421
Application 14/378,789
J '
/ /
l l
/ /
l l
l j
I I
<\,\,\'\
Appellants' Figure is a cross-section of a
switchgear arrangement.
\
', \
\~\"
Claim 10 recites "a first body having one end clamped as a pipe
connection piece at a support distal from said arc gap and a free end
projecting towards said arc gap, said first body having a lateral surface side
formed with at least one cutout." Br. 12. We find that element 17 in the
Appellants' Figure corresponds to the claimed first body. See Br. 2
(indicating that element 17 corresponds to the claimed first body).
Claim 10 also recites "a sheath encompassing said first body and
spanning said free end of said first body." Br. 12. We find that element 16
in the Appellants' Figure corresponds to the claimed sheath. See Br. 2
(indicating that element 16 corresponds to the claimed sheath).
4
Appeal2017-011421
Application 14/378,789
Sturzenegger Figure 1 is reproduced below:
31···
Fig1
l
I!
Sturzenegger Figure 1 is an axial sectional view
through a portion of a gas-blast switch.
The Examiner finds that element 22 in Sturzenegger Figure 1
corresponds to the claimed first body. Non-Final Act. 3. Sturzenegger
discloses that radially inwardly protruding support ribs or strut members 32
are attached to inner wall 23 of first body 22. Sturzenegger, col. 4, 11. 22-24.
Sturzenegger also discloses that two sets of tongue members 41 and 42 are
secured to inner wall 23 of first body 22. Sturzenegger, col. 4, 11. 53-55.
Finally, Sturzenegger discloses that windows or passages 43 and 44 are
formed at first body 22. Sturzenegger, col. 5, 11. 3---6.
5
Appeal2017-011421
Application 14/378,789
Nowakowski Figure 1 is reproduced below.
cove,..,uJ 6y tJJ~ lu
ava ,A a di~r.cf- ,...,d1a.l
f{ow ~r qu~rid,,,J 'j~5 , I
Nowakowski Figure 1 is a schematic design
for an interrupter unit.
The Examiner finds that element 11 corresponds to the claimed sheath
and element 7 corresponds to the claimed first body. Non-Final Act. 4.
Nowakowski discloses that "[t]he first mounting element 5 has a separate
associated flow deflection device 7. The separate flow deflection device 7 is
composed of an insulating material." Nowakowski, col. 3, 1. 65---col. 4, 1. 1.
Significantly, the Examiner has failed to show that Nowakowski's
element 7 corresponds to Sturzenegger's first body 22 in either structure or
function. Therefore, any dimensional relationship between Nowakowski's
elements 11 and 7 would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Sturzenegger's sheath 46 as proposed by the Examiner, i.e., to span
the free end of Sturzenegger's first body 22. For that reason, the
obviousness rejection of claims 10, 14, and 17 is not sustained.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, and 19, the
Examiner does not rely on Bose to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of
6
Appeal2017-011421
Application 14/378,789
claim 10 identified above. See Non-Final Act. 4--5. Therefore, the
obviousness rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, and 19 is not sustained.
2. Rejection (3)
Claim 20 recites a switchgear arrangement comprising, inter alia, "a
first body" and "a sheath encompassing said first body and spanning said
free end of said first body." Br. 14 (emphasis added).
As in the rejection of claim 10, the Examiner finds that Sturzenegger
does not disclose that sheath 46 spans the free end of first body 22. 6 Non-
Final Act. 6. The Examiner, however, finds Bose discloses a switchgear
comprising first body 34 and sheath 10, wherein the sheath spans a free end
of the first body. Non-Final Act. 6.
The Appellants argue that providing Sturzenegger's device with a
sheath, as disclosed in Bose, would reverse the gas stream in Sturzenegger
and, thus, change the principle of operation of Sturzenegger's device.
Br. 10.
The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
Slightly extending Sturzenegger's sheath to span the free end of the first
body, as taught by Bose, would not reverse the gas stream. Rather, jacket or
outer chamber 47 (formed between sheath 46 and first body 22) would
6 The Examiner also finds that Sturzenegger does not disclose a pipe-shaped
post insulator mounted to a housing. Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner,
however, finds that Bose discloses a pipe-shaped post insulator and
concludes that modifying Sturzenegger with Bose's insulator would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Non-Final Act. 6-7. The
Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness.
7
Appeal2017-011421
Application 14/378,789
remain open at its lower region and permit gas to exit the device. See Bose
Fig. 2 (showing gas exiting the device at the open end of sheath 10).
The Appellants also argue that relying on Bose to modify
Sturzenegger's sheath 46 "would be unobvious according to the principles
outlined in MPEP 2144.l(VI)." Br. 10. The most recent version of the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure does not include section 2144.1 (VI),
and the Appellants do not identify the legal principles said to demonstrate
that the proposed combination of Sturzenegger and Bose would have been
unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the Appellants'
argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
For the reasons set forth above, the obviousness rejection of claim 20
is sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 14, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sturzenegger in view of
Nowakowski is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12, 13, 15, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sturzenegger in view of
Nowakowski, and further in view of Bose is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sturzenegger in view of Bose 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8