Ex Parte LIGONESCHE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14642232 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/642,232 03/09/2015 Renaud LIGONESCHE
40582 7590 08/23/2018
American Air Liquide, Inc.
Intellectual Property Department
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
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.
Serie 9847 8396
EXAMINER
WADDY, JONATHAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
IP-USOffice@airliquide.com
Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com
J us tin.Murray@airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RENAUD LIGONNESCHE and CHIARA TARANTELLO
Appeal2017-009387
Application 14/642,232 1
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Final Decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, L' Air Liquide, Societe Anonyme pour
L'Etude et !'Exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude, Paris, France,
identified by the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009387
Application 14/642,232
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, with claims 2-14 depending
therefrom. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A gas distribution system including a gas container (20), a
valve assembly and a protective cap (21) arranged around said
valve assembly ( 1 ), and wherein:
- the gas distribution valve assembly includes a rotary
control member (5), man[]euv[e]rable by a user, cooperating
with a gas flow rate control system for controlling the gas flow
rate delivered by the valve assembly, said rotary control member
including a peripheral region ( 10) including markers ( 11)
angularly offset relative to a rotation axis (AA) of the rotary
control member, said markers (11) each corresponding to a given
gas flow rate, and
- the protective cap (21) including an opening (24) in
which the rotary control member ( 5) is housed, wherein the
opening (24) is at least in part bordered by a projecting rim (22)
projecting away from an external lateral surface of the protective
cap (21 ), said projecting rim (22) including a cut-out (23)
forming a reading window coming to be positioned facing a
marker ( 11) carried by the peripheral region ( 10) of the rotary
control member ( 5) so as to enable a user to view said marker
(11) through the reading window (23).
REJECTI0NS 2
1. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hagstrom (US 2008/0110925 Al, pub. May 15,
2008) and Swain (US 2007/0257498 Al, pub. Nov. 8, 2007).
2. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hagstrom, Swain, and Emanuel (US 2011/0017324 Al,
pub. Jan. 27, 2011).
2 The rejections from the Final Action not listed below were withdrawn in
the Answer. Ans. 10.
2
Appeal2017-009387
Application 14/642,232
3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hagstrom, Swain, and Cesbron (US 2014/0251456 Al, pub. Sept. 11, 2014).
4. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zaiser (US 2005/0238555 Al, pub. Oct. 27, 2005),
Hagstrom, and Swain.
OPINION
Hagstrom/Swain - Claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 10---13
Appellant argues claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 10-13 as a group. Appeal Br.
5-7. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 10-13 stand
or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Hagstrom teaches each element of claim 1,
other than the "projecting rim." Final Act. 9. The Examiner explains that
"Hagstrom is modified in view of Swain because Hagstrom is unclear about
how the brim/rim is attached to the rest of the assembly." Ans. 11. The
Examiner cites Swain as teaching the "projecting rim," noting that "Swain
teaches in Figs. 1-9 such a projecting rim on a nearly identical system, if not
absolutely identical." Final Act. 9. The Examiner reasons that it would
have been obvious to modify Hagstrom accordingly "to only allow one of
the markings to show at a time through a reading window formed in the
projecting rim." Id.
Appellant does not address this rejection in any meaningful way.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings or rationale for
combining the teachings of Hagstrom and Swain in this rejection. In the
Appeal Brief, for example, Appellant only addresses specifically the
rejection over Hagstrom under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Appeal Br. 5-7), which, as
noted above, has been withdrawn by the Examiner. In addressing the
3
Appeal2017-009387
Application 14/642,232
rejection based on the combination of Hagstrom and Swain, Appellant
simply notes that "[t]his rejection is derivative of and expressly based upon
the novelty rejection above and therefore improper at least for the reasons
stated above with respect to the novelty rejection." Id. at 7. The arguments
presented in Appellant's Reply Brief are also directed to anticipation by
Hagstrom, even though that is no longer a pending rejection. See Reply Br.
2 ("The analysis is still grounded on anticipation by Hagstrom, with a
supplemental reference alleged to disclose inherent features.").
Appellant's arguments all focus on whether the "projecting rim" is
inherent in Hagstrom. Appeal Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3. The problem is that
in this rejection, which is based on the combined teachings of Hagstrom and
Swain, the Examiner cites Swain as teaching the projecting rim and modifies
Hagstrom accordingly, as explained above. Accordingly, because Appellant
fails to address the rejection before us, we are not apprised of Examiner
error.
Additional Rejections
The Examiner additionally rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over various combinations of Hagstrom,
Swain, Emanuel, Cesbron, and Zaiser. Appellant does not present separate
arguments with respect to those rejections, relying, instead, on the arguments
discussed above (Final Act. 7-8), which we do not find persuasive.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in these additional
rejections.
4
Appeal2017-009387
Application 14/642,232
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5