GARRY SEARS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2021001202 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2021)

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.
15/920,683 03/14/2018 GARRY LEE SEARS ECI.P.1 6835
26360 7590 07/27/2021
Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA
Huntington Tower, Suite 400
106 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308-1412
EXAMINER
HUDDLE, HEATHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
pto@rennerkenner.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY LEE SEARS
Appeal 2021-001202
Application 15/920,683
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–17. An oral hearing was
held on July 14, 2021. A transcript of that hearing will be included in the
record when available. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, Gary
Lee Sears. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001202
Application 15/920,683

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a manifold. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A cryogenic gas manifold, comprising:
first and second tubular headers, each of said tubular
headers being sealed closed at opposite ends thereof;
said first tubular header having an input nipple extending
therefrom;
said second tubular header having an output nipple
extending therefrom;
said first and second tubular headers each having a
plurality of branch nipples extending from sides thereof; and
each of said first and second tubular headers having a
foot clamped to a bottom end thereof.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Boyher US 2008/0276998 A1 Nov. 13, 2008
Macaluso US 2015/0233528 A1 Aug. 20, 2015
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as being anticipated by Boyher.
Claims 7, 11, and 14–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Boyher and Macaluso.

2 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) was withdrawn in the Examiner’s
Answer. See Ans. 3.
Appeal 2021-001202
Application 15/920,683

3
Claim 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Boyher, Macaluso, and “the Application Approved Prior
Art (AAPA)”3; or over Boyher and AAPA.
OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 15 require “first and second tubular headers,
each . . . being sealed closed at opposite ends thereof” and “each of said first
and second tubular headers having a foot clamped to a bottom end thereof.”
Appellant provides little explanation in response to the Examiner’s
rejections, contending only that “capping of the pipes of Boyher would make
that manifold unsuited for its intended purpose” and that “the element 440 of
Boyher is a frame, and the elements 434 are supporting straps, which . . . are
not feet by any stretch of the imagination.” Appeal Br. 8–9.
Appellant’s contention regarding whether Boyher teaches the feet
recited in the claims is unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that Boyher
discloses each manifold “having a foot clamped (434, 440, para. 79) to a
bottom end thereof (shown to be the bottom of the tubular header in Fig. 5).”
Final Act. 4. Notably, as explained in the Answer, “no argument is provided
in how Boyher 434 and 440 fail to teach a foot clamp and what structure is
lacking from Boyher that is provided in the appellant’s invention.” Ans. 6.
Boyher explains that its manifold is “mounted in supporting connection with
a frame 440 such as a wall stud or other supporting structure,” and that
“[t]he mounting can be done through one or more supporting straps 434,
which are fastened into operative connection with the frame 440 with

3 The Examiner references Appellant’s Figure 2 and corresponding
description as AAPA. Final Act. 8. Appellant does not dispute this
characterization.
Appeal 2021-001202
Application 15/920,683

4
screws, nails or other suitable fasteners.” Boyher ¶ 79 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s naked assertions, without more, are insufficient to identify
reversible error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
With respect to the recited sealed manifold ends, the Examiner finds
that Boyher discloses “each of [its] tubular headers being sealed closed at
opposite ends thereof (via 132, Fig. 2A, paras. 67, 68).” Final Act. 3.
Appellant’s contention that “any such capping of the pipes of Boyher would
make that manifold unsuited for its intended purpose” is confusing, as the
rejection is based on a finding that Bother expressly discloses this feature,
rather than a modification to Boyher’s structure. Nevertheless, the only way
we can make sense of this statement in connection with the anticipation
rejection presented by the Examiner is to interpret Appellant’s statement as
disputing whether Boyher discloses capping both ends of its manifold. This
interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s assertion that “the first and
second tubular headers of both claims specifically provide for the tubular
headers being sealed closed at opposite ends thereof,” taken together with
Appellant’s subsequent mention of “any such capping of the pipes of
Boyher.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). For purposes of this decision, we
provide Appellant with the benefit of that understanding.
The portions of Boyher cited by the Examiner to support the finding
regarding sealing opposite ends of each manifold discuss use of a cap or
plug to seal an end of a manifold. See Boyher ¶¶ 67, 68. We see no
discussion in the cited paragraphs of Boyher, however, related to sealing
both ends of a manifold. Nor does the Examiner provide any explanation as
to why one skilled in the art would understand the discussion in Boyher as
disclosing such an arrangement. Accordingly, the Examiner fails to
Appeal 2021-001202
Application 15/920,683

5
establish that Boyher, which the Examiner relies on in each rejection,
discloses “each of said tubular headers being sealed closed at opposite ends
thereof” as required by the claims.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–17.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13,
15, 16
102 Boyher 1–11, 13,
15, 16
7, 11, 14–17 103 Boyher, Macaluso 7, 11, 14–17
4, 6 103 Boyher, AAPA, or
Boyher, Macaluso,
AAPA
4, 6
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 13–17
REVERSED