Ex Parte Chatfield et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

12189630 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

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.
12/189,630 08/11/2008 Glen F. Chatfield 019276.0004 7375
47022 7590 06/30/2016
THE LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD W. JAMES
25 CHURCHILL ROAD
CHURCHILL, PA 15235
EXAMINER
COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GLEN F. CHATFIELD and JOHN G. CRANDALL1
____________

Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

GEIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 10–24, and 27–36.2 Appeal Br. 1. An
oral hearing was held on March 30, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is OPTIMUM Pumping
Technology, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 We note that the Examiner objected to the Specification and claims 4, 30,
and 32–36. As petitionable matters, we express no opinion on the
Examiner’s objections.
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “reducing pulsations in fluid
systems.” Spec. 1, l. 7. Claims 3 and 10 are representative and recite:
3. A pulsation attenuation device, comprising:
a pump having a variable operating speed;
a first loop having an inlet coupled to the pump, an outlet,
and two branches therebetween, the first branch being longer
than the second branch by an amount equal to half of a first
wavelength within a range of wavelengths of vibrations
propagating in a fluid discharged from the pump; and
a second loop having an inlet coupled to the first loop
outlet, an outlet, and two branches therebetween, the first branch
being longer than the second branch by an amount equal to half
of a second wavelength within the range of wavelengths of
vibrations propagating in a fluid discharged from the pump.

10. A pump pulsation attenuation device to attenuate a range
of pulsation frequencies, comprising:
a first inlet junction having an inlet through which a fluid
flows, the first inlet junction further including a first outlet and a
second outlet;
a first conduit having a first end coupled to the first outlet
of the first inlet junction, having a first length, and having a
second end opposite the first end;
a second conduit having a first end coupled to the second
outlet of the first inlet junction, having a second length
approximately equal to the first length plus half a first primary
wavelength within a range of wavelengths of vibrations
propagating in a fluid, pumped by the pump, and having a second
end opposite the first end;
a first outlet junction having a first inlet coupled to the
second end of the first conduit, a second inlet coupled to the
second end of the second conduit, and an outlet;
a second inlet junction having an inlet in fluid
communication with outlet of the first outlet junction, the second
inlet junction further including a first outlet and a second outlet;
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

3
a third conduit of a third length having a first end coupled
to the first outlet of the second inlet junction, and having a second
end opposite the first end;
a fourth conduit of a fourth length approximately equal to
the third length plus half a second primary wavelength, the
second primary wavelength different from the first primary
wavelength, not equal to half the first primary wavelength, and
within the range of wavelengths of vibrations propagating in the
fluid pumped by the pump, and the fourth conduit having a
second end opposite the first end; and
a second outlet junction having a first inlet coupled to the
second end of the third conduit, a second inlet coupled to the
second end of the fourth conduit, and an the outlet.

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 10–16, 18–24, and 27–36 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamamoto (US 4,600,076; iss.
July 15, 1986) and Hwang (US 6,633,646 B1; iss. Oct. 14, 2003), as
evidenced by Baars (US 5,762,479; iss. June 9, 1998).
The Examiner rejected claim 17 as upatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Yamamoto, Hwang, as evidenced by Baars, and Aldridge (US
2,501,751; iss. Mar. 28, 1950).
ANALYSIS
Claims 3 and 27–30
Appellants argue that Yamamoto does not disclose “a first branch
being longer than a second branch by an amount within a range of
wavelengths propagating in a fluid discharged from a pump.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellants’ arguments appear to focus on the Examiner’s finding that
Yamamoto discloses a branch that “can be longer by an amount of ¼ of a
wavelength of pulsations propagating from the pump.” Final Act. 7 (citing
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

4
Yamamoto 4:51–57). The Examiner bases this finding on Yamamoto’s
disclosure that the fluid branching pipe may “have a length of one-fourth or
more of the wavelength of an existing pulsating motion.” Yamamoto 4:51–
55. Appellants contend that the foregoing portion of Yamamoto “is directed
to a resonance occurring when the frequency of fluid passing through a
piping system is close to the frequency of a source of pulsation, such as a
reciprocating compressor, not varying pipe lengths within a range of
wavelengths of propagating vibrations.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellants further
contend that “[t]he cited portion has no regard for the specific relative
lengths of the pipes, and thus no regard for the phase relation between the
waves in the pipes that would affect whether the wave was dampened upon
recombination.” Reply Br. 7.
We agree with the Examiner that Yamamoto’s disclosure supports the
finding. We note that the Examiner is correct that Yamamoto’s focus on
frictional dampening does not negate its disclosures of the looped structure
seen in Figure 2 and the length of the branch. Ans. 13. Stated differently,
even if Yamamoto focuses on frictional dampening it still discloses that its
branch length may have the length the Examiner finds. See id. at 13–14
(citing Yamamoto 4:51–57); see also id. at 14 (“Yamamoto specifically
discusses how the area and length of the branched pipe portion 4 are
designed in such a manner that pressure pulsations within the system are
dampened by the loop.” (citing Yamamoto 4:45–57)). Accordingly, we see
no error in the Examiner’s reliance upon the express disclosure in
Yamamoto regarding the length of Yamamoto’s branch pipe.
Appellants also argue that “Yamamoto does not disclose that the
second conduit has a length equal to the length of a first conduit plus half a
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

5
first wavelength or that a fourth conduit has a length equal to the length of a
third conduit plus half a second wavelength.” Appeal Br. 9. Instead,
Appellants contend that Yamamoto discloses that “the longer its branching
pipe, the better.” Id.
Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error. The Examiner
makes findings regarding the dampening effect of Yamamoto’s branch, and
the Examiner also specifies that Yamamoto “does not specifically disclose
[Appellants’] claimed branches length (i.e., ½ of a wavelength) (Yamamoto
discloses ¼ of a wavelength).” Final Act. 8. The Examiner further finds
that Hwang discloses such a branch length and that one of skill in the art
would have combined Hwang’s loops with Yamamoto’s structure to get “a
simple but effective pulsation attenuator that efficiently minimizes varying
pulsation wavelengths propagated from a pump.” Final Act. 10. In light of
the foregoing, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings regarding the
length of Yamamoto’s branch because the Examiner relies upon Hwang for
its disclosure of the claimed length. Id.; see also Ans. 15–16 (explaining
that “this deficiency in Yamamoto is precisely why the secondary reference
to Hwang was utilized”).
Appellants argue that Yamamoto does not disclose a “second loop.”
Appeal Br. 10; see also Appeal Br. 11 (“Yamamoto discloses use of a
plurality of branches, but does not disclose a plurality of looped branches for
a single pump.”). Instead, “Yamamoto is directed to deflecting a pulsation
using an orifice in a branch pipe.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Appeal Br. 11.
Appellants’ argument again does not apprise us of error because the
Examiner relies upon Hwang for this element. Final Act. 8 (stating
Yamamoto “does not specifically show how this plurality of loops would be
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

6
arranged, and thus does not specifically disclose Applicant’s claimed
‘second loop’ structure”); see also id. at 10 (“Hwang discloses the known
use of a dual-looped pulsation dampener . . . .”); Ans. 16–17.
Appellants also argue that Yamamoto “does not state any comparative
length between [a] single branch pipe and any other pipes.” Appeal Br. 11.
Hence, Appellants argue, Yamamoto does not appear to be concerned
withattenuating the pulsation by dividing it and passing it through unequal
length branches.” Id.
Appellants’ argument regarding Yamamoto’s failure to address
attenuation of multiple frequencies does not apprise us of Examiner error.
Again, the Examiner relies upon Hwang for such a disclosure. Final Act. 10
(“Hwang states that second/fourth conduits (12, 13) each attenuate a
different wavelength (i.e. first and second wavelengths) of two different
pulsation frequencies.); Ans. 16–17 (stating that Hwang discloses
attenuation of two different wavelengths and “when modifying Yamamoto
to include a second, serially-connected branch, two different wavelengths
would be dampened”).
Appellants further contend that Yamamoto “is not a reference that can
properly be combined with Hwang to make that obviousness rejection.” Id.
at 12.
We first note that the precise focus of Appellants’ argument is
unclear. To the extent it constitutes an argument that either Hwang or
Yamamoto is non-analogous art, we reject that out of hand as the argument
is not made in the context of applicable law. Moreover, to the extent the
argument attacks the Examiner’s stated motivation of a skilled artisan to
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

7
have combined Hwang with Yamamoto, we similarly reject that argument as
failing to address the Examiner’s stated reasons.
Appellants also argue that Hwang does not disclose use of its noise
control apparatus on an “air conditioner compressor” because Hwang refers
only to use of the apparatus on an engine or an “air conditioning system in a
building.” Appeal Br. 12 (citing Hwang, 8:28–31). The Examiner finds, “an
air conditioning compressor is an inherent and essential feature of any air
conditioning system.” Ans. 18. The Examiner’s finding is based on sound
reasoning, and Appellants do not provide evidence or persuasive argument
contesting this finding, and thus, does not apprise us of error.
Appellants next argue that Hwang does not disclose attenuation of two
frequencies because “Hwang discloses control of noise at only a single
primary frequency (the current primary frequency of the noise) and certain
harmonics of that single frequency.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellants similarly
argue that Yamamoto does not cure this failure. Id. at 13. Appellants
conclude that “neither Hwang nor any of the other cited references discloses
or suggests the attenuation of two primary frequencies that are not
harmonically related.” Id.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because it is
not grounded in the language of the claim. Claim 3 does not specify that the
claimed device must attenuate primary wavelengths. Claim 3 refers only to
“a first wavelength” and a “second wavelength.” This is in contrast to claim
10 that recites “a first primary wavelength” and “a second primary
wavelength.” As the Examiner finds, Hwang discloses attenuation of two
wavelengths. Final Act. 10; Ans. 16–17. Appellants’ argument is therefore
not commensurate with the scope of claim 3.
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

8
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3. Moreover, as Appellants do not make any separate arguments
regarding claims 27–30 which depend directly or indirectly from claim 3, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.
Claim 10
Appellants argue that Hwang does not teach or suggest attenuation of
two primary frequencies. Appeal Br. 17–18. Instead, Appellants contend,
“Hwang discloses control of noise at a single primary frequency (the current
primary frequency of the noise) and certain harmonics of that frequency.”
Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 4. We agree.
As an initial matter, Appellants’ Specification explains the difference
between a primary frequency and its harmonics. The Specification states:
Repeating pulses with frequency F and period P are made up of
the sum of an infinite series of sine waves with frequencies F,
2*F, 3*F, . . . periods P/1, P/2, P/3, . . . and amplitudes A1, A2,
A3, . . . These sine waves are normally referred to as the primary
frequency, F, the first harmonic frequency, 2*F, second
harmonic frequency, 3*F, and so on.
Spec. 11, ll. 20–25. From that discussion, we can conclude that a harmonic
frequency is a multiple of a primary frequency. See id.; see also
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/harmonic?s=t (last visited June 15, 2016)
(defining “harmonic” as “a single oscillation whose frequency is an integral
multiple of the fundamental frequency”). Inversely, a primary frequency is
not a multiple of another primary frequency. See id. The Examiner relies
upon Hwang for a disclosure of attenuation of two wavelengths. Final Act.
10 (citing Hwang 5:57 to 6:27); see also Ans. 14–15. The Examiner states
that Hwang attenuates “two different primary frequency ranges” which are
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

9
“clearly different from one another (i.e., two different primary frequencies),
and are not harmonics of one another.” Ans. 15. However, as noted by
Appellants:
That assertion is wrong. The Hwang system actually controls
one primary noise component C through its first bypass pipe 12
at a frequency that is an integer multiple of engine RPM (C = C2
= 2 times the RPM or C = 3 times the RPM are specified at col.
5, ll. 52-57), and, for the case of C = C2 = 2 times the RPM, a
harmonic frequency that is “a frequency of two times the
frequency of the component C2” through a second bypass pipe
13. See [Hwang] col. 5, lines 64 through col. 6, line 8; see also,
e.g., [id.] col. 2, line 60 to col. 3, line 5 (object of invention to
eliminate main noise component as well as odd and even
harmonics); col. 3, lines 28–32 (summary of invention disclosing
elimination of main noise component and certain harmonics);
and col. 3, lines 50–62 (summary of the invention disclosing pipe
lengths corresponding to main noise component and harmonic).
Thus, Hwang discloses a system directed to a single primary
frequency and certain harmonics of that frequency-and not two
different primary frequencies-and never discloses a structure that
concurrently attenuates two different primary frequencies.
Reply Br. 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10
or claims 11–18 and 31 that depend from claim 10.
Claim 19
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by failing to address “the
third and fourth conduits recited in claim 19, which are in simultaneous fluid
communication with the suction side of the pump.” Appeal Br. 19.
Appellants thus contend that “none of the references cited disclose use of a
set of parallel, different length conduits arranged on the suction side of a
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

10
pump and use of another set of parallel, different length conduits arranged
on the discharge side of the pump.” Id.
Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of Examiner error because it
does not address the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds that “Baars
further provides evidence that it is known to utilize pulsation dampeners
disposed at both the inlet and outlet of a reciprocating compressor (see col.
1, lines 13-20).” Final Act. 8. The Examiner further explains that “the
Examiner utilizes the Baars reference to provide evidence that such an inlet
pulsation dampening structure is known (col. 1, lines 13-20), and thus, one
of ordinary skill could easily apply these teachings to the pump of
Yamamoto.” Ans. 20–21; see also id. at 21 (“Baars provides clear evidence
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill desiring an increased
pulsation dampening effect to utilize the looped pipe assembly of Yamamoto
at both the discharge and suction sides of the compressor 1.”). Appellants
do not explain why the Examiner’s reliance on Baars is in error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
Moreover, as Appellants do not make any separate arguments regarding
claims 20–24 and 31 which depend from claim 19, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims.
Claim 32
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 should be
reversed for the same reasons as claim 3 and because no reference discloses
“attenuation of pulsations on the inlet side of a pump.” Appeal Br. 19‒20.
With respect to the arguments made regarding claim 3, we reject those for
the same reasons stated supra. With respect to Appellants’ new argument,
we determine that it does not apprise us of Examiner error for the same
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

11
reasons stated with respect to claim 19 supra. Moreover, as noted by the
Examiner, claim 32 does not expressly recite the “attenuation of pulsations
on the inlet side of the pump.” See Ans. 21 (“Claim 32 lacks any structural
limitations requiring that its loops be placed at the suction [end] of the
pump/compressor.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32.
Moreover, as Appellants do not make any separate arguments regarding
claims 33–36 which depend from claim 32, we also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims.
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4 Appellants state the following:
the Office Action cites Barrs’ [sic] statement that a “refrigerant .
. . tends to produce noise, requiring the provision of acoustic
dampening systems in the suction and in the discharge sides of
the compressor.” The Examiner asserts that that statement
combined with Yamamoto discloses the pulsation attenuation
device recited in claim 3 coupled to an inlet of the pump.
Applicants submit that those references are not properly
combined and that, even combined, the references do not
disclose the invention recited in claim 3 or the coupling of that
invention to an inlet of a pump.
Appeal Br. 20. To the extent Appellants challenge the Examiner’s stated
motivation to combine the references or the status of any reference as
analogous art, we reject those arguments as not grounded in applicable law
and as lacking the required specificity. To the extent the foregoing is an
argument that the references do not recite an apparatus “coupled to an inlet
of the pump” as claim 4 requires or a device “in fluid communication with
an inlet of the pump” as claim 15 requires, we do not find Appellants’
argument persuasive.
Appeal 2013-008582
Application 12/189,630

12
As we noted with respect to claim 19, the Examiner explains the
applicability of Baars to the present invention and makes findings regarding
how one of skill in the art would have applied the teachings of Baars to
Yamamoto’s device. Ans. 20–21. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 19–24, 27–30
and 32–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10–18 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART