Isabelle Debecker et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2020

14117915 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2020)

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.
14/117,915 11/15/2013 Isabelle Debecker Serie 8875 2354
40582 7590 03/02/2020
American Air Liquide
Intellectual Property Department
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2020 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):
IP-USOffice@airliquide.com
Justin.Murray@airliquide.com
Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ISABELLE DEBECKER, THOMAS JOUANNEAU,
and PHILIPPE LEFEBVRE
____________________

Appeal 2018-004151
Application 14/117,915
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
12–16 and 18. Final Act. 1 (summary). Claims 1–11, 17, and 19–22 have
been canceled. Appeal Br. 11–12 (claims appx.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real
party in interest is l’Air Liquide, Société Anonyme pour L’Etude et
l’Éxploitation des Procédés George Claude. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004151
Application 14/117,915

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a laser nozzle with a movable element.
Sole independent claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
12. A laser nozzle comprising:
a nozzle body comprising an axial housing
passing axially through said nozzle body and
comprising a first outlet orifice situated at a front face
of the nozzle body and
a movable element comprising a front part
forming a skirt, arranged in the axial housing of the
nozzle body, said movable element being capable of
translational movement in the axial housing of the
nozzle body and comprising an axial passage with a
second outlet orifice emerging at the front part
forming the skirt, wherein:
the movable element is able to move
translationally in the axial housing in the direction of
the first outlet orifice under the effect of a gas
pressure exerted on the movable element until the
front part forming the skirt of the movable element
comes to project outside the axial housing through
the first outlet orifice in the front face of the nozzle
body, and
an elastic element is arranged in the axial housing,
between the nozzle body and the movable element,
said elastic element exerting an elastic return force on
the movable element tending to oppose the
translation movement in the axial housing in the
direction of the first outlet orifice,
wherein the movable element is able to move
between several positions comprising:
an idle position in which the skirt of the front part
retracted in the axial housing of the nozzle body, due
to the return force provided by the elastic element,
and
Appeal 2018-004151
Application 14/117,915

3
a working position in which the skirt of the front
part projects outside the axial housing of the nozzle
body, through the first outlet orifice, due to the effect
of a gas pressure exerted on the movable element.
REFERENCES
Liedtke
Yamaoku
US 4,027,137
US 6,797,917 B1
May 31, 1977
Sep. 28, 2004
REJECTION
Claims 12–16 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yamaoku and Liedtke.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Yamaoku teaches the majority of the
limitations of independent claim 12, but acknowledges that “Yamaoku does
not teach wherein the movable element can move between an idle and
working position.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner therefore relies on Liedtke
to teach this limitation. Id. The Examiner finds that Liedtke’s coil spring
16:
surrounds the upper portion of nozzle 10 (movable element,
Fig. 1) coacts between the nozzle holder 15 and an annular
shoulder 17 (stop, Fig. 1) on the nozzle 10 for purposes of urging
the nozzle 10 downward and against the workpiece 11 from an
idle and a working position where the nozzle holder 15 is out the
nozzle holder 15 [sic].
Id.
Appellant responds, inter alia, that neither reference teaches an elastic
element exerting an elastic return force on the movable element tending to
oppose translation of the movable element in the direction of the first outlet
orifice, and therefore neither reference teaches a movable element that is
Appeal 2018-004151
Application 14/117,915

4
able to move to an idle position in which the skirt of the front part is
retracted in the axial housing of the nozzle body due to the return force
provided by the elastic element. Appeal Br. 5, 8; Reply Br. 4–5. We agree.
Yamaoku’s spring 37 presses flanged pipe 31—which the Examiner finds
corresponds to the claimed movable element—downwardly against the inner
face of hollow cage member 32—which the Examiner finds corresponds to
the claimed nozzle body. Yamaoku, 3:63–64, Fig. 3; Final Act. 4. The
spring thus exerts a force that is the opposite of an upward “return force.”
Liedtke’s coil spring 16 also forces nozzle 10—corresponding to the claimed
movable element—downwardly towards the work piece, rather than exerting
an upward return force. Liedtke, 2:50–55. Because neither reference
teaches the claimed elastic element that exerts an upward return force,
neither reference teaches a movable element able to move to an idle position
due to the return force provided by the elastic element. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–16 and
18 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–16, 18 103 Yamaoku, Liedtke 12–16, 18
REVERSED