Ex Parte Thompson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2012

11425494 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT THOMPSON
____________

Appeal 2010-000980
Application 11/425,494
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-16. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-000980
Application 11/425,494

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 14 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal. Claim 1 recites:
1. An onboard fire suppression system for an automotive
vehicle, comprising:
a propellant for expelling a fire suppressant agent from a
reservoir;
a distribution system for receiving fire suppressant agent
expelled by means of said propellant from a reservoir, and for
distributing the suppressant agent; and
at least one composite reservoir containing a fire
suppressant agent, with said reservoir being operatively
connected with said distribution system and with said
propellant, said reservoir comprising:
a pressure vessel having an outer wall; and
a dynamic sealing liner positioned within said
pressure vessel, with said sealing liner being sufficiently
deformable in response to fluid pressure produced by
said propellant within said reservoir such that a portion of
said sealing liner will be extruded into sealing
engagement with said wall in the event that a pressure-
formed discontinuity opens in said outer wall.

REJECTIONS
The following rejection is before us for review:
claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith (US 2003/0150625 A1, publ. Aug. 14, 2003)
and Iida (US 2004/0206762 A1, publ. Oct. 21, 2004).

OPINION
The Appellant argues claims 1-16 as a group. We select claim 1 as
the representative claim from the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-000980
Application 11/425,494

3
The Examiner finds Smith discloses a fire suppression system for an
automotive vehicle including a propellant 32, distribution system 18, 20, 22,
and a reservoir 24 including a pressure vessel having an outer wall (Smith,
para. [0045]). Ans. 3; see Smith, figs. 1-3. The Examiner also finds Smith
does not disclose a dynamic sealing liner within the pressure vessel. Ans. 3.
The Appellant has not disputed these findings made by the Examiner.
The Examiner also finds that Iida discloses a pressure vessel 1
comprising an outer shell 3 and an inner shell 2, which corresponds to “a
pressure vessel having an outer wall” and “dynamic sealing liner” as recited
in claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify or replace the pressure vessel of Smith
having a relatively nondescript material
construction, with a pressure vessel including a
dynamic sealing liner having the more fully
described material fabrication for the outer wall
and liner as taught by Iida, since Smith open-
endedly discloses that the pressure vessel may be
fabricated from "other material providing similar
strength and durability", and since the pressure
vessel of Iida is disclosed as being light in weight
and excellent in maintaining its internal pressure
against repetitive impacts and is also excellent in
reliability.
Id.
The Appellant contends that Iida’s inner shell 2 does not correspond
to the functional limitations of the dynamic sealing liner as recited in claim
1, i.e., “said sealing liner being sufficiently deformable in response to fluid
pressure produced by said propellant within said reservoir such that a portion
of said sealing liner will be extruded into sealing engagement with said wall
Appeal 2010-000980
Application 11/425,494

4
in the event that a pressure-formed discontinuity opens in said outer wall.”
See Br. 6-7. Where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a claimed
functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden
shifts to the Appellant to show that the prior art does not possess that
characteristic. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977)
(quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13 (CCPA 1971)). As such, we
look to the Examiner’s findings to determine if the Examiner had a reason to
believe Iida’s dynamic sealing member claimed functional limitation is an
inherent characteristic of Iida’s inner shell 2.
The Examiner finds that the structure of Iida’s inner shell 2 is the
same as the dynamic sealing liner as claimed, particularly “high density
polyethylene (see paragraph [0053]).” Ans. 4; see Br. 9, Clm. Appd’x.
(Claim 5 further limits the dynamic sealing member recited in claim 1 to
comprise “high density polyethylene.”). The Examiner also finds that Iida’s
dynamic inner shell 2 is placed under high pressure. Ans. 5; compare Br. 9,
Clm. Appd’x. (Claim 1 calling the discontinuity in the outer wall to be
pressure-formed), Spec. 15, para. [0077] (“liner 272 is selected to provide
the pressure-driven extrusion characteristic needed to seal outer wall 268 if a
high pressure leak develops in reservoir 18.” (emphasis added)). For the
foregoing reasons the Examiner had reason to believe the claimed functional
limitation is an inherent characteristic of Iida’s inner shell 2. Ans. 5. As
such, the burden shifts to the Appellant to show Iida does not possess the
functional limitations as recited in claim 1.
The Appellant contends that “there never will be a breach” in Iida’s
outer shell 3 such that Iida’s inner shell 2 could be extruded. Br. 6. First,
the Appellant asserts Iida’s disclosure at paragraphs [0080], [0093], and
Appeal 2010-000980
Application 11/425,494

5
[0123] supports this contention. However these paragraphs evidence that
Iida’s structural design functions to attempt to prevent a breach from
occurring, which is different than a breach that can never occur. More
specifically, paragraph [0080] discloses that the arrangement of the
reinforcing fibers of the outer shell is to prevent the pressure vessel from
bursting when a hole is formed by impact. However, designing a structure
to prevent the pressure vessel from bursting when a hole is formed by impact
implies the outer shell 3 has the ability to be breached. Paragraph [0093]
discloses that the outer shell 3 disperses stress and absorbs energy when a
large impact force acts on the outermost layer 8e of the multi-layer structure
of the outer shell 3. This prevents damage to the inner layers of the outer
shell and can decrease damage to the outermost layer of the outer shell; so in
that situation no fatal damage would occur. However, the magnitude of the
“large impact force” is unknown. As such, it is not reasonable to assert that
for all situations fatal damage will never occur. Paragraph [0123] discloses
the prevention of fatal damage due to propagation and expansion of
repetitive impacts in the same region of the outer shell 2. This paragraph
also does not reasonably stand for the proposition that for all situations fatal
damage will never occur. Thus, these paragraphs do not reasonably support
the allegation that “there never will be a breach” in the outer shell 3. See
Ans. 7.
Second, even if the Appellant’s allegation were true that Iida’s outer
shell 3 will never be breached, such would not show that Iida’s inner shell 2
does not have the structure to perform the function as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 calls for the “dynamic sealing member” to be able to “be extruded
into sealing engagement with said wall in the event that a pressure-formed
Appeal 2010-000980
Application 11/425,494

6
discontinuity opens in said outer wall.” Claim 1 does not call for the
“pressure vessel having an outer wall” to have or be capable of having a
pressure formed discontinuity in the outer wall. In other words, the
Appellant places focus on the capability of Iida’s outer shell 3 to have a
pressure formed discontinuity, which is distinct from Iida’s inner shell 2
having structure capable of performing the function as recited in claim 1.
See Ans. 7.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1-16 as unpatentable
over Smith and Iida is sustained.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh