Ex Parte Le Gall

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

10664865 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/664,865 0912212003
23373 7590 08/05/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles Le Gall
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.
Q77525 4308
EXAMINER
MILLER, SAMANTHA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
lJ}HTED STATES PATENT AND TRADE1\1ARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES LE GALL
Appeal2014-004420
Application 10/664,865
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LISA M. GUIJT, and GORDON D. KINDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles Le Gall (Appellant) 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner's decision2 rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-17, which are all
of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alcatel. Br. 2.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action, dated March 16, 2012
("Final Act."), as further modified in the Advisory Action, dated July 6,
2012.
Appeal2014-004420
Application 10/664,865
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's claimed subject matter relates to "air conditioned
containers, for receiving equipment." Spec. 1, 11. 3--4. Claim 1 is the sole
independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A container comprising:
walls defining an inside zone housing for at least one piece of
equipment, at least one of said walls comprising:
at least three sub-walls which are spaced apart from one
another to define at least first and second air circulation
spaces being separated without any communication
therebetween, and comprise
a first sub-wall which faces the outside of the container,
a second sub-wall which faces the inside zone, and
a third sub-wall which is interposed between the first and
second sub-walls and sealingly separates the first and second
air circulation spaces so that air in the inside zone of the
container does not contact the air outside of the container,
wherein said first air circulation space communicates with
the outside of said container via at least a first outside opening
and a second outside opening formed through the first sub-
wall, the first and second outside openings define air
circulation pathways between the first air circulation space
and the outside of the container,
said second air circulation space communicates with said
inside zone via at least two inside openings, and
said first sub-wall is formed from a thermally insulating
material; and
a first air circulator device, which comprises a lower portion
proximate the container and an upper portion distant the
container and is installed through the second outside opening so
2
Appeal2014-004420
Application 10/664,865
that at least a part of the lower portion is installed in the second
outside opening and the upper portion protrudes upward from the
second opening onto the outside of the container.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence:
Baltes
Howard
Bretschneider
Stoller
us 4,869,872
us 5,467,250
us 6,149,254
US 6,877,551 B2
REJECTIONS
Sept. 26, 1989
Nov. 14, 1995
Nov. 21, 2000
Apr. 12, 2005
The Final Office Action contained the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stoller, Howard, and Baltes.
2. Claims 4, 6-12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stoller, Howard, Baltes, and Bretschneider.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection
Independent claim 1 recites a container comprising "a first sub-wall
which faces the outside of the container," "a second outside opening formed
through the first sub-wall," and "a first air circulator device ... installed
through the second outside opening so that at least a part of the lower
portion is installed in the second outside opening and the upper portion
protrudes upward from the second opening into the outside of the container."
Br. 14 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal2014-004420
Application 10/664,865
The Examiner found that Stoller discloses a container 300 having a
first sub-wall (cabinet housing 302) which faces the outside of the container,
a second outside opening formed through the first sub-wall (housing of fan
322), and a first air circulator device (fan 322). Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner found that Stoller does not disclose that fan 322 has:
a lower portion proximate the container and an upper portion
distant the container and is installed through the second outside
opening so that at least a part of [the] bottom [of] the lower
portion is installed in the second outside opening and the upper
portion protrudes upward from the second opening onto the
outside of the container.
Id. at 5. The Examiner relied on Howard for the disclosure of a container
having an air circulator device (fan 79) mounted in a container in the manner
claimed. Id. (finding that Howard's fan 79 is installed through a second
outside opening (opening in ceiling 85) so that the upper portion of fan 79
protrudes upward from the second opening onto the outside of the container)
(citing Howard, Fig. 5). The Examiner determined that it would have been
obvious to position fan 322 of Stoller in container 300 in the manner
disclosed by Howard. Id.
Appellant argues that even if combined in the manner proposed by the
Examiner, the proposed combination would not result in the subject matter
of claim 1 because "neither of Stoller and Howard teaches an air circulator
which is installed through the opening formed through the first sub-wall
facing the outside of the container." Br. 8. In particular, Appellant asserts
that in Stoller, the opening through which fan 322 is installed is not an
outside opening formed through a first sub-wall which faces the outside of
4
Appeal2014-004420
Application 10/664,865
the container. Id. at 6-7 (noting that "fan 322 is installed in the opening in
the left-side wall separating the cooling compartment 320 and the vent
compartment 318 and sucks in the air from the vent compartment 318").
Appellant further asserts "Howard does not teach an air circulator which is
installed through the opening formed through the wall which faces the
outside of the container." Id. at 8 (noting that "fans 79 of Howard are
installed inside the alleged container on a shelf [34] and are covered by the
roof 26").
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's proposed combination
of Stoller and Howard would not result in an air circulator having an upper
portion that protrudes upward from the second opening onto the outside of
the container, as called for in claim 1. The wall forming cabinet housing
302 of Stoller is a first sub-wall which faces the outside of the container.
Stoller's fan 322, however, is installed in a different sub-wall that is located
within container housing 302. Stoller, Fig. 3 (showing the inner wall
through which fan 322 is installed with different cross hatching from the
outer wall of cabinet housing 302). As such, the Examiner erred in finding
that "the first air circulator device (322) is considered to be mounted in the
outer wall of the container (302)." Ans. 10-11.
Howard discloses a cabinet 20 having a base 22, side walls 24, a roof
26, and a pair of doors 28 and 30. Howard, col. 4, 11. 31-33. Howard
further discloses that the cabinet includes a removable fan shelf 34. Id. at
1. 42. As shown in Figure 5 of Howard, fans 79 are mounted to ceiling 85 of
cabinet 20. Ceiling 85 rests atop shelf 34 and lies below roof 26. Howard,
5
Appeal2014-004420
Application 10/664,865
Fig. 5. Thus, Howard's fans 79 are installed in ceiling 85, which is located
within cabinet 20. As such, the Examiner erred in finding that "[a] first air
circulator device (79) ... is installed through the second outside opening ...
and the upper portion (top of 79) protrudes upward from the second opening
onto the outside of the container (outside of 85 the top of the container)
(Fig. 5)." Final Act. 5. For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that
neither Stoller nor Howard discloses a first air circulator device installed
through the second outside opening so that the upper portion of the device
protrudes upward from the second opening onto the outside of the container.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner's stated reason to further
modify the cabinet of Stoller, as modified by Howard, to make the first sub-
wall formed of a thermally insulating material, in light of Baltes, is
"technically unsound." Br. 9 (arguing that there is insufficient evidence to
show that a problem with potential for skin bums existed at the time of the
invention in the electronic equipment cabinet art). We agree with Appellant
that the Examiner failed to articulate adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings for the proposed further modification of Stoller in view of
Baltes. In particular, the Examiner failed to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that the problem of potential for skin bums was a known
problem in the art of cabinets for housing electronic equipment, such that
Baltes, which relates to a process for drying and sterilizing items at high
temperatures, would have led one to modify the equipment cabinet of Stoller
in the manner claimed.
6
Appeal2014-004420
Application 10/664,865
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2 and 13-16 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stoller, Howard, and Baltes.
Second Ground of Rejection
The second ground of rejection of dependent claims 4, 6-12, and 17
relies on the same combination of Stoller, Howard, and Baltes as relied upon
in the rejection of independent claim 1, and further relies on Bretschneider.
Final Act. 6-9. The Examiner does not rely on Bretschneider to cure the
above-noted deficiencies in the underlying combination of Stoller, Howard,
and Baltes. Id. As such, for the reasons discussed above in the analysis of
the first ground of rejection, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 6-12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stoller, Howard, Baltes, and Bretschneider.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-17 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
7