Ex Parte Choudhuri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

13194529 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
13/194,529 07/29/2011 Ahsan Choudhuri 1000-3313 1074
64064 7590 09/21/2017
ORTIZ & LOPEZ, PLLC
P.O. BOX 4484
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87196-4484
EXAMINER
EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2017 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):
docketing @ olpatentlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte AHSAN CHOUDHURI
Appeal 2017-000072
Application 13/194,529
Technology Center 3700
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, BETH Z. SHAW, and MICHAEL J.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—8, 10—18, and 21—24, which
represent all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to miniature axial-flow turbopumps.
Spec. 13.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed April
08, 2015 (“Br.”), the Specification filed July 29, 2011 (“Spec.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed August 14, 2015 (“Ans.”) and the Final
Rejection mailed November 7, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2017-000072
Application 13/194,529
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An axial-flow pump comprising:
a housing having an internal surface defining a channel having
an inlet portion and an outlet portion, the channel extending through
the housing;
an inlet guide having a body and a plurality of axial vanes
spaced at equiangular intervals about a perimeter of said body and
extending outward from the body and from each vertex of said body,
the inlet guide configured to be coupled in fixed relation to the
housing inside the channel;
a stator spaced apart from the inlet guide, the stator having a
stator body and a plurality of curved vanes extending outward from
the stator body, the stator configured to be coupled in fixed relation to
the housing inside the channel closer to the outlet portion than is the
inlet guide, the curved vanes each having a concave upstream surface;
a rotor rotatably disposed between the inlet guide and the stator,
the rotor having a rotor body and a plurality of curved vanes
extending outward from the rotor body that each have a concave
downstream surface, the rotor configured to be coupled to a motor or
turbine to rotate the rotor relative to the inlet guide and the stator to
pump fluid through the channel in a flow direction from the inlet
guide toward the stator;
where the pump is configured such that if:
the rotor rotates at 10,000 revolutions per minute (rpm), the
pump can pump liquid through the channel at a volumetric flowrate of
a unit volume per second, where the unit volume is at least two times
the channel volume along the length of the inlet guide, the rotor, and
the stator.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Duport et al. (US 3,406,632; Oct. 22, 1968).
Final Act. 5—9.
2
Appeal 2017-000072
Application 13/194,529
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 13—18, and 21—24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Duport. Final Act. 9-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s arguments. For
the reasons discussed below, we do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claim
1.
Our reviewing court has held that unless a reference discloses “within
the four comers of the document” not only all of the limitations claimed but
also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in
the claim, it cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net Money IN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 1 recites, in part, “curved vanes extending outward from the
stator body ... the curved vanes each having a concave upstream surface.”
Appellant argues that Duport fails to disclose that the vanes have a concave
upstream surface. Br. 11.
The Examiner responds in the Answer that in Figure 7 of Duport,
“callout 27 shows a concave surface that is upstream of the trailing edge
(29). This is a concave upstream surface.” Ans. 15.
The Specification explains that curved vanes 74 “each have a concave
upstream surface 78 (surface that generally faces inlet portion 38).” Spec.
174, Fig. 3A. Thus, viewed in light of the Specification, the concave
upstream surface recited in claim 1 faces the inlet portion.
We do not agree that the cited portions of Duport disclose “curved
vanes extending outward from the stator body ... the curved vanes each
3
Appeal 2017-000072
Application 13/194,529
having a concave upstream surface,” as recited in claim 1. Figure 7 of
Duport depicts two symmetrical bulb casings 5, with one on the left and one
on the right. Duport 3:50—60. The Examiner finds “the stator of Duport is
the bulb casing 5 as seen on the right side in Fig. 7.” Ans. 15. The
Examiner further finds that the inlet is on the left of Figure 7 and the outlet
is on the right. Ans. 2. This is the same direction shown in Figure 3A of the
present application, as indicated by label 12. Spec. 170. As discussed
above, to be a “concave upstream surface,” the surface facing upstream (i.e.,
to the left) must be concave. Spec. 178. In Figure 7 of Duport, the right
bulb casing’s element 27 is convex towards the upstream (i.e., to the left).
See also Spec. Fig. 3A, 178 (explaining surface 82 is “convex” relative to
the downstream). Thus, the right bulb casing’s element 27 has a convex
upstream surface, which fails to disclose the claimed concave upstream
surface.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 1. The
Examiner identified the same cited portions of Duport as teaching the same
disputed limitation for independent claim 13. Final Act. 11. Therefore, for
the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claim 13
or the remaining pending dependent claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—8, 10—18, and 21—24
is reversed.
REVERSED
4