13757075 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

Ex Parte Donnelly et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 10, 2018

13757075 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

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. 13/757,075 02/01/2013 Brian Donnelly 813209-US-NP 7576 47394 7590 01/12/2018 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./ALCATEL-LUCENT 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 EXAMINER SOLAK, TIMOTHY P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/12/2018 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN DONNELLY, NICHOLAS JEFFERS, and JASON STAFFORD Appeal 2016-008347 Application 13/757,075 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-008347 Application 13/757,075 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants Brian Donnelly et al.1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated July 15, 2015 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kolm (US 4,498,851, issued February 12, 1985). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a device for moving air. Claims 1 and 5 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device for moving air comprising: a piezoelectric element attached to a planar body disposed at least in part between a first wall and a second wall, the planar body being configured to oscillate at a movable end between said walls generating an airflow in response to applying alternating electric current to said piezoelectric element; the device further comprising a base plate such that the first wall, the second wall and the base plate form a partially closed cavity surrounding the movable end of the planar body, said base plate further comprising an opening located proximate to said movable end of the planar body and configured for allowing an airflow from said partially closed cavity out of the device. 1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, dated December 15, 2015, (“Appeal Br.”), at 3. 2 Appeal 2016-008347 Application 13/757,075 DISCUSSION The Rejection of Claims 1—10 as Anticipated By Kolm The Examiner finds that Kolm discloses all of the limitations in independent claims 1 and 5, including “the planar body being configured to oscillate at a movable end between said walls.” Final Act. 4—12. The Examiner finds that the recited “planar body” is blade 152/118a (shown in Figure 3) and the “movable end” is the entire length of the blade (shown in Figure 5). See, e.g., id. at 10-11. Figure 5 of Kolm is presented below: '200 FJq. 5 Referring to Figure 5, an axonometric view of one embodiment of the claimed blower (see Kolm 3:27—28), the Examiner explains that the broken lines show the movable end 118 of blade moving back and forth between the side walls of unit 200. Final Act. 9—10. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5 is erroneous for two main reasons. First, Appellants argue that the 3 Appeal 2016-008347 Application 13/757,075 Specification describes the movable end as the “terminal” end 122 of blade 12, not the entire length of the blade as suggested by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 6 (citing Spec. Tflf 22, 26, 31—33, 35, and Fig. 2). We agree. Figure 2 of the Specification, for example, shows movable end 122 is located at the “terminal” end of the blade 12, and the entire movable end 122 oscillates completely between side walls 15, 16. See, e.g., Spec. 133 (“oscillation may be maximum in amplitude at the movable end 122 of the blade 12.”). No portion of the blade oscillates outside of the side walls. The Examiner’s construction of “movable end” is not consistent with the Specification and, therefore, is erroneous. Second, Appellants argue the Kolm does not disclose a movable end that oscillates between the first and second walls, as recited in claims 1 and 5, because the broken lines in Figure 5 in Kolm show that a portion of blade 208/210 oscillates outside of the side walls 204. We agree. The claims recite that the entire movable end oscillates between the first and second walls. The Examiner’s finding regarding Kolm is erroneous. For the reasons above, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 is not sustained. Claims 2-4 and 6—10, which depend from claims 1 and 5, stand with claims 1 and 5. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 is REVERSED. REVERSED 4