Ex Parte Neuhalfen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

14241110 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/241,110 02/26/2014 Mark G. Neuhalfen
32116 7590 08/01/2018
WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER
500 W. MADISON STREET
SUITE 1130
CHICAGO, IL 60661
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.
SEA04401P00170US 7404
EXAMINER
DANDRIDGE, CHRISTOPHER R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
docketing@woodphillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK G. NEUHALFEN and PETER J. WALTERS
Appeal 2017-011625
Application 14/241, 110
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark G. Neuhalfen and Peter J. Walters (Appellants) 1 seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Purvis (US 6,345,775 Bl, issued
Feb. 12, 2002). Final Office Action (June 13, 2016) (hereinafter "Final
Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is identified as AptarGroup, Inc. Appeal Br. (Feb.
27, 2017) (hereinafter "Br."), at 1.
Appeal 2017-011625
Application 14/241, 110
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. In an actuator ( 18) for actuating a valve ( 16) on a container
(14) for dispensing a fluent product from the container (14), the
actuator (18) including a dispensing flow path ( 5 8) to direct
fluent product from the valve (16) to an exterior of the actuator
(18) via an exit orifice ( 64) located at an end of the flow path
(58), and a post (70) defining a portion of the flow path (58), the
post (70) extending along and centered on a longitudinal axis
(72) and having an end face (74) adjacent said exit orifice (64),
an improvement comprising:
a flow channel (100) extending laterally across the end
face (74) of the post (70), the flow channel (100) being
symmetric about a lateral axis ( 102) extending transverse to the
longitudinal axis (72) of the post (70), a portion of the flow
channel (100) directly communicating with said exit orifice (64)
to direct the fluent product from the flow channel (100) into the
exit orifice ( 64 );
wherein the exit orifice (64) is symmetric about the lateral
axis (102) of the post (70).
Br. 16 (Claims App.).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Purvis discloses all limitations recited in
claims 1, 16, and 1 7, including an actuator comprising a post 26 defining a
portion of a flow path, with the post 26 extending along and centered on a
longitudinal axis and having an end face adjacent an exit orifice 30. See
Final Act. 2-3, 6-7 (citing Purvis Figs. 3, 6, 7). According to the Examiner,
Purvis discloses that "structural feature (26) may be a 'throughbore or
cannula,"' and, accordingly, Purvis provides alternative configurations for
2
Appeal 2017-011625
Application 14/241, 110
the structural feature 26. Ans. 3 ( citing Purvis, col. 6, 11. 64---66).
Continuing, the Examiner states, "the configuration may feature either a
throughbore, or a cannula extending through the nozzle (18) and terminating
at the flow restrictor (28)." Id. ( emphasis added). The Examiner indicates
that a "cannula" is defined as "a small tube for insertion into a body cavity
of[] a duct or vessel." Id. (citing Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
The Examiner finds that the so-called cannula described in Purvis
corresponds to the claimed "post" having an end face, and that Purvis
discloses a flow channel (flow restrictor 28) extending laterally across the
end face of that post. Final Act. 2, 6-7; see Purvis, Fig. 7.
Appellants contend that Purvis does not disclose the claimed post. Br.
5. Appellants assert that the Examiner incorrectly interprets element 26 as a
positive structure or tube element separate from nozzle 18. Id. at 6.
Appellants argue that Purvis uses the term "cannula" as a synonym for a
"throughbore," the latter being simply a hole running through nozzle 18. Id.
at 7. In support, Appellants make the following points about Purvis: (1) the
term "cannula" is used only once (id. at 8 ( citing Purvis, col. 6, 11. 64---66) );
(2) no separate reference number is provided for a "cannula," thereby
indicating that a "throughbore" and a "cannula" are used as synonyms (id.);
(3) the figures do not show a cross-section of a cannula (id. at 10 ( citing
Purvis Figs. 3, 6, 7)); and (4) the disclosure of the assembly of nozzle 18
with button 16 does not mention a cannula element and only indicates that
the insertion end 22 of nozzle 18 is sized for mounting to the button exit port
20 (id. at 12 (citing Purvis, col. 6, 11. 34---62; see also Figs. 3, 4)).
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. In Purvis, the sole appearance
of the term "cannula," as a seeming alternative description of a throughbore,
3
Appeal 2017-011625
Application 14/241, 110
with regard to element 26, is insufficient to constitute a disclosure that a
separate element in the form of a small tube is contemplated to be provided
within the flow passage identified by reference number 26 in Figure 3. As
such, the Examiner's finding that element 26 can be "a small tube for
insertion into a body cavity of [] a duct or vessel" that corresponds to the
claimed post is not supported by Purvis. Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner has
not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Purvis discloses a
post defining a portion of the flow path, and which extends along and is
centered on a longitudinal axis and has an end face adjacent an exit orifice,
and a flow channel extending laterally across the end face of the post, as
required by claims 1, 16, and 17.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 16, and 17,
and of claims 2-15 depending from claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-17.
REVERSED
4