Ex Parte ChoudhuriDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201713194529 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation