11608959 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

Ex Parte Thompson

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 26, 2012

11608959 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ROBERT THOMPSON ____________ Appeal 2010-000719 Application 11/608,959 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Robert Thompson (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meister (US 5,129,386; iss. July 14, 1992). Claims 3-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, Appeal 2010-000719 Application 11/608,959 2 claims 10-12 are canceled, and claims 13-16 are allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to an automotive vehicle having an onboard apparatus for suppressing a vehicle fire.” Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An onboard fire suppression system, comprising: at least one reservoir containing a fire suppressant agent; a propellant, operatively associated with said reservoir, for expelling the fire suppressant agent from the reservoir under pressure; and a distribution system for receiving fire suppressant agent expelled from said reservoir and for distributing the suppressant agent in at least one location external to a vehicle, with said distribution system comprising a plurality of nozzles having pressure-configurable orifices. ISSUE The issue presented by this appeal is whether Meister’s orifices 50 are “pressure-configurable orifices” as called for in claim 1. PRINCIPLES OF LAW “In examining a patent claim, the PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification.” In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Appeal 2010-000719 Application 11/608,959 3 FINDINGS OF FACT Appellant defines “pressure-configurable orifices” in the Specification: As used herein, the term “pressure configurable” means that, in essence, the orifices do not exist prior to deployment of the fire suppression system. When the propellant within the system is activated, frangible resin is either removed forcibly from the apertures by the blowout force provided by the propellant, or in the case of a wrapped woven tube, the blowout force of the propellant will cause the tube to extend axially. This axial extension, combined with the blowout force of the propellant, will cause frangible resin to part from the woven fabric tube, allowing fire suppressant agent to be discharged through interstices formed in the wall of the conduit. Spec. 2, para. [0005]. The embodiment shown in Figures 12 and 14 is consistent with this definition. The Specification describes with reference to Figures 12 and 14, a nozzle 216 having a “woven generally tubular fiber preform 228 [that] functions as a reinforcement for resin 224.” Spec. 9, para. [0041]. The tubular fiber reinforcement 228 has a number of pre- existing apertures 232 that result in a discontinuity within the fiber reinforcement 228. Id. Pressure produced by a propellant causes the resin 224 to fracture, thereby forming orifices 234 extending through the walls of nozzle 216 at the apertures 232 in the tubular fiber reinforcement 228. Id. We disagree with the Examiner that “in at least the embodiment shown in Figures 12 and 14 of the instant application, the pressure- configurable orifices actually do ‘exist’, but are merely closed off by the presence of the resin material prior to deployment of the fire suppression Appeal 2010-000719 Application 11/608,959 4 system.” Ans. 5. The nozzle 216 of Figures 12 and 14 is made of tubular fiber reinforcement 228 and resin 224, and prior to deployment of the fire suppression system, no orifices exist in this nozzle 216. While apertures 232 are present in the tubular fiber reinforcement 228, the apertures 232 are filled with resin 224, so that the nozzle 216 has no openings through it. It is only after deployment of the fire suppression system and after fracture of the resin 224 that orifices exist in nozzle 216. We also disagree with the Examiner’s determination that the orifices 50 in Meister’s nozzle 25 are pressure-configurable orifices. Ans. 5. The Examiner admits that the orifices 50 in Meister’s nozzle 25 exist prior to deployment of the fire suppression system and are merely closed off by the tubular member 28. Id. In Meister’s pressure fryer, prior to deployment of the fire suppression system, i.e., in the inactive position shown in Figure 3, the nozzle 25 has discharge ports 50 extending through it, which are sealed from the contents of vessel 12 by tubular portion 28 of nozzle housing 26 and O-ring 51. Meister, col. 2, l. 67 – col. 3, l. 4, 63-67; fig. 3. Upon deployment, pressurized fire suppressant is admitted into the nozzle housing 26 and acts against a piston 40 to advance the nozzle head 48 and the O-ring 51 out of the tubular portion 28 of the nozzle housing 26 and into the interior of the vessel 12 until the O-ring 51 and discharge ports 50 are clear of the tubular portion 28 and the suppressant is sprayed out of the ports 50. Meister, col. 4, ll. 3-26; fig. 4. As such, Meister’s orifices 50 are not within the scope of “pressure-configuration orifices” because orifices 50 of nozzle 25 exist prior to deployment of the fire suppression system. Thus, we cannot Appeal 2010-000719 Application 11/608,959 5 sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meister. CONCLUSION Meister’s orifices 50 are not “pressure-configurable orifices” as called for in claim 1. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 2 is REVERSED. REVERSED nlk