Source: http://ipmall.info/content/bpai-board-patent-appeals-and-interferences-patent-and-trademark-office-pto-1-ex-parte-57
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:49:29+00:00

Document:
Request filed May 20, 1985, Control No. 90/001,227, for the Reexamination for Patent No. 4,604,111, issued August 5, 1986, based on application Serial No. 735,716, filed April 20, 1985; and a Continuation of Serial No. 323,730, filed November 23, 1981, abandoned. Particulate Contamination Control Method and Filtration Device.
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through 29, which are all of the claims in this reexamination proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 4,604,111. Claims 1 through 17 are identical to the claims appearing in the patent; claims 18 through 29 were added during prosecution of this reexamination.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a method and system for reducing airborne asbestos contamination during the course of asbestos removal from an existing building.
(4) sealing said flow path against air exiting from said air space to the exterior of said enclosed space in the event of loss of negative air pressure in said enclosed space.
sealing means for sealing off said inlet against air exiting from said air space to the exterior of said air space automatically upon loss of negative air pressure in said air space.
5. claim 12 stands rejected for the reasons set forth in either rejection 3 or 4 above, further in view of Whitfield.
We reverse each of the examiner's rejections.
The issue resolved in McGaughey was confined to whether prior art established in the patent record by an unequivocal admission may be relied upon to support a rejection during a reexamination proceeding involving that patent. [FN5] The examiner would have us extend the holding in McGaughey by expanding the scope of reexamination proceedings to permit reliance upon prior art established by admissions during a reexamination proceeding and prior art established by admissions in external court proceedings. We need not resolve such issues since, in the situation before us, we find no prior art (public use) established by admissions in this reexamination proceeding or in any external court proceeding.
During the course of work at Cinnaminson in the summer of 1980, experiments were conducted with taping back the plastic sheets that formed the air lock, thus providing a relatively small opening formed by the slit. This, of course, contrasted with accepted procedures at that time, which required the work area to be sealed as tight as possible (page 11, emphasis supplied).
Mr. Natale's next asbestos removal project was in Moorestown, New Jersey, a project which began in September 1980 and extended through the end of November. It was there that experiments were first conducted with replacing the air lock by a plastic flap hung over the top of a slit in the plastic work area enclosure to form a flap seal. It is believed that the air inlet at the Moorestown job began simply with a vertical slit in the plastic wall, with horizontal slits at the bottom. It is also believed that experiments were begun with enlarging the air inlet opening to allow far greater volumes of air flow into the work area (page 13, emphasis supplied).
(a) It is believed that the first complete use of the invention described and claimed in the Natale patent was for testing and experimental purposes beginning in early September 1980 and continuing to mid-December 1980 (emphasis supplied).
*5 This is not to say that the Office (Patent and Trademark Office) has been willing to open reexamination to any type of evidence that is available to the examiner during initial examination. The Commissioner has construed section 305 conservatively. Facts, including admissions which have already been established in the record, have been authorized for use in reexamination proceedings. See 37 CFR 1.106(c) and M.P.E.P. § 2258 (footnote omitted). The PTO has not authorized other types of evidence such as on-sale bars, public use issues or issues relating to fraud (emphasis supplied).
We hold that the examiner has no authority to engage in a fact-finding endeavor to establish the existence of a public use under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) during a reexamination proceeding. Ergo, we shall not consider the evidentiary material relied upon by the examiner in his endeavor to establish a prior public use.
The only remaining essential evidence relied upon by the examiner is ECTS. We again refer to the affidavit of Thomas Natale, paragraphs 21 and 22, wherein affiant reveals that the ECTS report was commissioned by appellant to document the work at the Cinnaminson project to satisfy the school district that the job was being performed competently and to document for internal purposes what was done at the job site. A total of only five or six copies of the report were made, three copies of which were sent to the Cinnaminson School District and one to the architect representing the school district.
A document relied upon as a printed publication must have traversed into the public domain, i.e., it must have been accessible to the public. In re Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357, 196 USPQ 670 (CCPA 1978). The burden of establishing that a document was publicly accessible rests upon the examiner as part of his burden of establishing a prima facie basis for denying patentability. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.Cir.1988); In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). In attempting to discharge that burden, the examiner has merely relied upon Requestor's allegations that the ECTS report enjoyed wide distribution as advertising literature rather than proffer objective evidence of public accessibility of the ECTS report. In addition, the examiner would appear to have resorted to speculation as to whether the ECTS report was publicly accessible. In short, the examiner has failed to establish that the ECTS report was publicly accessible and, therefore, available as prior art. The additional references mentioned in the examiner's statement of rejection 1 would appear to be relied upon optionally to buttress the rejection predicated upon a prior public use. We need not, therefore, address the issue of whether the examiner has established that reference G and reference J were printed publications, specifically, accessible to the public.
*6 We reverse rejection 1 inasmuch as the examiner has not provided the requisite factual basis to support a legal conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Rejection 2 is reversed since Whitfield does not cure any of the deficiencies in rejection 1.
The sheet area should be kept below atmospheric pressure by an extract fan fitted with an "absolute" filter so that the direction of the air flow is from the change room to the work zone. It may be necessary to fit ventilation flaps to the tent system at selected locations to improve ventilation in a particular area or where high extraction rates are required.
The exact nature of the mentioned ventilation flaps and their operation are not apparent. Thus, it cannot be determined from the face of the "Asbestos" reference whether there is a disclosure of the sealing procedure set forth in step 4 of claim 1 or the sealing means appearing in claim 8. We shall not resort to speculation. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967).
of the fact that ventilation flaps in a tent system are normally understood to be capable of sealing the openings they control when they are closed (page 21 of the Answer).
This noticed fact was challenged by appellant. Notwithstanding appellant's challenge for evidentiary support, the examiner maintained his position. The examiner's failure to provide objective evidence to support the challenged officially-noticed fact constitutes clear and reversible error. Ex parte Nouel, 158 USPQ 237 (Bd.App.1967). Rejection 3 is, therefore, reversed.
Rejections 4 and 5 are reversed for reasons which are apparent from the reversal of rejections 1 and 3 above.
FN1. The critical date is November 23, 1980.
FN2. ECTS is a report of the work performed at the Cinnaminson project (Affidavit of Thomas Natale, paragraphs 21 and 22).
FN3. The third party affidavits are contradicted by numerous affidavits submitted by appellant. See the affidavits of Anthony Natale, Thomas Natale, Dr. Peter Frasca, Raymond S. Beck, the supplemental affidavits of Anthony Natale and Thomas Natale and the affidavit of George E. Hall.
FN4. The relevant reexamination statutory provisions are discussed at length in McGaughey and Ex parte Horton, 226 USPQ 697 (BPAI 1985). They include 35 U.S.C. §§ 301, 303 and 305.
For purposes of this appeal, we need not and do not consider whether other facts besides admissions established in the record are authorized under section 305.
FN6. Interrogatory 22 was generated during a civil action styled Brand Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Anthony Natale, Duall Maintenance Co., t/a Duall, Inc., Microtrap, Inc. v. GPAC, Inc., Civil Action No. 86-7093, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 5, 1986, which action was settled on December 2, 1987 by an agreement that included a dismissal of the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, the Brand Companies took a license under the Natale patent.
FN7. In the Supplemental Affidavit of Anthony Natale, paragraphs 2 through 5, affiant states that portion (c) which refers to an air inlet of sufficient size to enable relatively large volumes of air to enter the space is believed incorrect.
FN8. It is well settled that experimental activities do not constitute a public use or sale under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See, for example, City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement, 97 US 126 (1877); Barmac Barmer Maschinenfabrik Ag. v. Murata Machinery, Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 221 USPQ 561 (Fed.Cir.1984); TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 220 USPQ 877 (Fed.Cir.1984). Furthermore, payment does not per se create a 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bar. Baker Oil Tools, Inc. v. Geo Vann, Inc. 828 F.2d 1558, 4 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed.Cir.1987).

References: § 2258
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.