Dieter Frank et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 25, 2019

13994248 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2019)

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. 13/994,248 06/14/2013 Dieter Frank 815293 1086 95683 7590 09/25/2019 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900 180 North Stetson Avenue Chicago, IL 60601-6731 EXAMINER CHAUDRY, ATIF H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2019 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): chgpatent@leydig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DIETER FRANK, FRANK MEISSNER, and UWE STABENOW ____________________ Appeal 2018-001631 Application 13/994,248 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27.2 An oral hearing was held on September 10, 2019. A transcript is included in the record (“Transcript”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as WABCO Europe BVBA. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 8, 10–12, 15, 16, 20, and 21 are indicated as including allowable subject matter. Final Act. 12. Appeal 2018-001631 Application 13/994,248 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. A compressed air supply system for operating a pneumatic system of a vehicle, the compressed air supply system comprising: a compressed air feed; a compressed air port leading to the pneumatic system; a vent port to the environment; a main pneumatic line between the compressed air feed and the compressed air port, the main pneumatic line including: an air dryer, and a pilot-operated non-return valve having a control chamber divided into a control space and a venting space by one of a control piston and a seal on the control piston, wherein the pilot-operated non-return valve is configured to open automatically in a filling direction from the compressed air feed to the compressed air port and is further configured to be released to allow flow in a venting direction from the compressed air port to the compressed air feed; and a vent line between the compressed air port and the vent port, the vent line comprising a vent valve. Appeal 2018-001631 Application 13/994,248 3 REJECTION References Basis Claims Behmenburg,3 Hennig,4 and Kubik5 § 103 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27 OPINION Appellant argues claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27 as a group. Appeal Br. 3–9. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Behmenburg teaches the majority of features recited in claim 1, including “a pilot operated non-return valve over-ride mechanism comprising a separate pilot operated valve 14 across non-return valve 6.” Final Act. 3–4 (emphasis added); see Behmenburg, Fig. 1. The Examiner finds Behmenburg’s separate over-ride mechanism 14 and non-return valve 6 differ from the claimed invention, “a pilot operated non- return valve,” which requires both functionalities to be performed by one device rather than separate devices. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Hennig teaches a pneumatic system having “a fluidically releasable non- return valve 328 in the form of a pilot operated non-return valve (from solenoid valve 318) as check valve over-ride mechanism (Para 23,25) for reverse flow across non-return valve.” Id. The Examiner proposes modifying Behmenburg’s separate valves to be a single valve based on the teachings from Hennig. Id. The Examiner reasons that such an arrangement 3 US 6,332,623 B1, issued Dec. 25, 2001. 4 US 2013/0306192 A1, published Nov. 21, 2013. 5 US 3,807,175, issued Apr. 30, 1974. Appeal 2018-001631 Application 13/994,248 4 would have been obvious “in order to reduce number of assembly parts by eliminating the need for separate check valve by-pass valve.” Id. at 4–5. The Examiner cites Kubik as teaching the specific chambers for the “pilot- operated non-return valve” recited in claim 1, and proposes further modifying Behmenburg’s teachings accordingly. Id. at 5–6. Appellant does not dispute the majority of the Examiner’s findings or rationale. Notably, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Behmenburg, the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Hennig, the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Kubik, or the Examiner’s rationale for the further modifications based on Kubik’s teachings. Although Appellant disputes whether one skilled in the art would have modified Behmenburg’s teachings based on those of Hennig, Appellant never addresses the rationale provided by the Examiner for the proposed modification based on Hennig’s teachings (i.e., simplification based on reduction of parts). See Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant, instead, contends that “[t]he Office fails to articulate any reason why the teachings of Hennig would be relevant to modifying the level adjustment device of Behmenburg.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant explains that “Hennig generally describes a tire management system (and not a level adjustment device for vehicles with air springs as described by Behmenburg) and specifically describes pilot check valves located in conduits between an outlet port of a regulator and individual tires” (id.), but this does not identify Examiner error. Appellant acknowledges that both Hennig and Behmenburg relate to pneumatic systems. See id. (“Hennig perform[s] a function in a tire management system—namely allowing air to flow into or out of tires” and Behmenburg describes an “air spring adjustment system.”). As the Appeal 2018-001631 Application 13/994,248 5 Examiner explains, Hennig is cited simply to show that “combining the separate reverse flow path parallel to the check valve into a single pilot- operated check valve” was known at the time of the invention (Final Act. 13), which Appellant does not dispute. At the oral hearing, Appellant acknowledged that at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art would have understood the structure required by a “pilot-operated non-return valve” (i.e., combining a separate reverse flow path parallel to a check valve into a single pilot-operated check valve” was known at the time of the invention). See Transcript 3:4–5 (“I think a pilot-operated non-return valve is known to a person of skill in the art.”). Appellant further alleges impermissible hindsight, but fails to offer any persuasive explanation as to why the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed combination is based solely on Appellant’s disclosure. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends that “the Office ignores disclosure in the Behmenburg reference that indicates that it would not be suitable to replace the combination of valves and flow paths identified by the Office with a single valve.” Id. at 8 (citing Behmenburg 2:10–15). The cited portion of Behmenburg states that “[t]he advantages achieved with the invention are to be seen in particular in the fact that the air springs are emptied through a pneumatically controlled distribution valve arranged between the air springs and the air dryer to which large flow cross-sections can be conducted . . . [to allow] a rapid emptying of the air springs.” Behmenburg 2:10–15. As the Examiner explains, and Appellant does not dispute, “Behmenburg as modified would be able to open the pilot controlled check valve in [the] reverse direction to allow rapid emptying of the air springs (as shown by Kubik).” Final Act. 13. Appeal 2018-001631 Application 13/994,248 6 Because Appellant fails to apprise us of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27 is AFFIRMED. 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