Ex Parte Carrubba

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

13365006 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/365,006 02/02/2012 Vincent Carrubba
27623 7590 09/28/2018
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
0010064USU1/3400 6708
EXAMINER
TADESSE, MARTHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT CARRUBBA
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, CHARLES N. GREENHUT and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
3 decision finally rejecting claims 1--4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19-23, 26, 27, 35 and 36.
4 Claims 5-8, 2 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 24, 25 and 28-34 are cancelled. We have
5 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant identifies IDQ Operating, Inc., as the real party in
interest. (See "Appeal Brief under 35 U.S.C. 134," dated Sept. 21, 2015, at
1 ).
2 Claims 5 and 8 were cancelled in an "Amendment After Final
Rejection under 37 C.F.R. 1.111," dated June 22, 2015. (See Advisory
Action, mailed July 15, 2015). The rejections to be reviewed in this appeal
appear on pages 2-13 of the Examiner' Answer, mailed April 21, 2016.
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
1 We REVERSE.
2 Claims 1, 15 and 19 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
3 1. A device for servicing an automobile refrigerant
4 system, comprising:
5 a body, the body comprising:
6 a first fluid port, wherein the first fluid port is
7 couplable to a fluid port of a fluid source;
8 a second fluid port, wherein the second fluid port
9 operatively couples to a refrigeration system;
10 a passage in fluid communication with the first and
11 second fluid ports and in fluid communication with a
12 measuring device; and
13 a plunger at least partially disposed in the passage of the
14 body, the first portion of the plunger being engagable with an
15 integrated valve of the fluid source, wherein the plunger is
16 adjustable between a released position and an engaged position,
17 and wherein adjustment of the plunger to the released position
18 during use allows communication between the second fluid port
19 and the measuring device while inhibiting communication
20 between the first fluid port and the fluid source;
21 wherein the plunger is disposed in the passage of the body
22 such that the plunger is at least substantially free to rotate within
23 a selected angular range, and the device further comprising one
24 or more inhibitors for restricting rotation of the plunger to the
25 selected angular range, and wherein the magnitude of the
26 selected angular range is at least about 10 degrees; and
27 wherein the plunger comprises one or more gaskets for
28 inhibiting unintentional release of fluid from the body during use.
29 The Examiner rejects the following claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
30 § I03(a):
31 claims 1--4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 35 and 36, as being unpatentable over
32 Carrubba (US 2005/0217285 Al, publ. Oct. 6, 2005), Quest (US
33 2006/0086123 Al, publ. Apr. 27, 2006), McGuire (US 2006/0006358
2
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
1 Al, publ. Jan. 12, 2006) and Motush (US 7,275,383 B2, issued Oct. 2,
2 2007) see Examiner's Answer, mailed Apr. 21, 2016 ("Ans."), at 2);
3 claims 19-21, 26 and 27 as being unpatentable over Carrubba,
4 Motush and Bandy (US 3,717,008, issued Feb. 20, 1973) (see Ans.
5 10); and
6 claims 22 and 23 as being unpatentable over Carrubba, Motush,
7 Bandy and Quest (see Ans. 13).
8 Carrubba describes a servicing device 10. The servicing device 10
9 includes a central body 100 having a first port 110, a second port 120 and a
10 third port 13 0. The first port 110 is coup lab le to a fluid port of the coolant
11 supply 30. The second port 120 communicates with a measuring device 14.
12 The third port 130 operably couples to the cooling system 30. (See
13 Carrubba, para. 35 & Fig. 2). Carrubba's servicing device 10 also includes a
14 plunger 210. The plunger 210 has an annular recess 220 surrounded on
15 either side by sealing rings 218. (See Carrubba, para. 40 & Fig. 3B).
16 When a free end of the plunger 210 is pressed, the plunger slides
17 within a valve bore 140 to a position in which one of the sealing rings 218
18 isolates the first and second ports 110, 120 from the third port 13 0. In this
19 mode, as depicted in Figure 3A, the measuring device 14 measures a
20 parameter of the gas, such as pressure, in the cooling system 20. If the
21 plunger is released and permitted to return to a rest position under the bias of
22 a spring 230, the other sealing ring 218 isolates the first and third ports 110,
23 130 from the second port 120. In this mode, as depicted in Figure 3B, the
24 device 10 charges the cooling system 20 using coolant from the coolant
25 supply 30. (See generally Carrubba, paras. 48 & 49).
26 The Examiner finds that Carrubba fails to disclose or teach:
3
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
1 wherein the plunger is disposed in the passage of the body such
2 that the plunger is at least substantially free to rotate within a
3 selected angular range, and the device further comprising one or
4 more inhibitors for restricting rotation of the plunger to the
5 selected angular range, and wherein the magnitude of the
6 selected angular range is at least about 10 degrees,
7 as recited in claims 1 and 15. (Ans. 3).
8 Quest describes a pressure measurement and charging assembly 200
9 for servicing a motor vehicle refrigerant system. (See Quest, para. 55 & Fig.
10 5). Quest's pressure measurement and charging assembly 200 includes a
11 low-pressure body 304 including an opening 236. The opening 236 is in
12 fluid communication with the low-pressure side opening 210B and with the
13 refrigerant can opening 212B, the latter by way of a conduit 234. (See
14 Quest, para. 65 & Figs. 7A-7C). A low-pressure side gauge 206 is secured
15 to the opening 236 by means of a plunger 238. (See Quest, para. 65 & Fig.
16 13A). Quest's plunger 238 includes a groove 236, depicted as helical in
17 Figures 1 lB and 11 C, for engagement with a pin 241. (See Quest, paras. 80
18 & 82). When the low-pressure side gauge 206 is turned, the pin 241
19 interacts with the groove 246 to cause the plunger 238 to translate within the
20 opening 236 in a screw-like motion to selectively cut off the flow of
21 refrigerant from the conduit 234 to the low-pressure side opening 210B.
22 (See Quest, para. 82 & Fig. 13B).
23 Quest teaches that the length of the groove 246 is limited, that is, that
24 the groove has a first end and a second end. The pin 2 41 engages these first
25 and second ends to restrict rotation of the plunger 238 to a selected angular
26 range. (See Quest, para. 80). Quest suggests that a quarter tum (that is, a
27 90° tum) may be sufficient to open and close the valve (see Quest, para. 89),
4
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
1 but does not suggest a suitable angular range within which to restrict the
2 motion of the plunger 238.
3 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious:
4 to modify the device of Carrubba such that the device was
5 provided with to have [sic] the plunger being disposed in the
6 passage such that the plunger is at least substantially free to rotate
7 within a selected angular range for adjusting and monitoring
8 pressure of the refrigerant system, so that the projection is
9 aligned with a desired axial channel, thus engaging the
10 corresponding grooves and preventing rotary motion of the body
11 relative to the fluid source.
12 (Ans. 4). The Appellant responds that "angular motion with the Quest et al.
13 device was used to translationally move the plunger, not to lock and hold the
14 plunger in a specific orientation as with Appellant's claimed device."
15 ("Appeal Brief under 35 U.S.C. § 134," dated Sept. 21, 2015 ("App. Br."), at
16 6). The Examiner responded to the Appellant's argument with the finding
17 that:
18 In both Carrubba et al. and Quest et al. device's [sic] the
19 rotational and translational movement of the plunger allows to
20 lock or engage in certain orientation in order to open the valve in
21 the fluid source and allow fluid flow from the pressurized fluid
22 source to the automobile system.
23 (Ans. 14, citing Carrubba, paras. 38 and 80).
24 The Examiner's reasoning is not persuasive. Carrubba's plunger 210
25 slides within the valve bore 140. It is not designed to rotate. In fact, the
26 portion of the plunger 210 that engages the valve bore 140 and the ports 110,
27 120, 130 appears axially symmetric, such that rotation of the plunger would
28 have little or no effect on the operation of the servicing device 10. The
29 Examiner has not articulated a persuasive reason for modifying Carrubba's
30 device 10 in a manner that would satisfy the quoted limitation.
5
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
1 Quest uses the helical movement of its plunger 2 3 8 to open or cut off
2 flow from the conduit 234 to the low-pressure side opening 21 OB. Quest
3 does not expressly teach locking its plunger 238 in a particular position or
4 orientation. The Examiner has not shown that Carrubba or Quest, alone or
5 in combination, describes a "projection" aligned with a desired axial
6 channel, "thus engaging the corresponding grooves and preventing rotary
7 motion of the body relative to the fluid source," as found by the Examiner on
8 page 4 of the Answer. Absent such teaching in the prior art, the Examiner's
9 rejection is tainted by hindsight. Neither do the paragraphs of Carrubba
10 cited by the Examiner adequately support the finding quoted from page 14
11 of the Answer.
12 McGuire describes a rotary valve assembly for controlling the flow of
13 free-flowing, granular materials descending from a hopper 200. (See
14 McGuire, para. 23). The rotary valve assembly includes a substantially
15 cylindrical body 115 and substantially cylindrical valve 130. (See McGuire,
16 para. 24 & Fig. 1). The substantially cylindrical valve 130 has a semi-
17 circular orifice at a downwardly-opening valve discharge end and a baffle
18 135 within the valve for directing granular material toward the orifice. (See
19 McGuire, para. 29 & Fig. 3a). In addition, a planar, semi-circular surface
20 140 positioned between the downwardly-opening valve discharge end and
21 the funnel 110 (see McGuire, para. 27 & Fig. 1) defines a semi-circular
22 orifice. Relative rotation between the substantially cylindrical body 115 and
23 the substantially cylindrical valve 130 causes the two semi-circular orifices
24 to align to a greater or lesser degree, thereby permitting greater or lesser
25 flow of the granular material to the funnel 110. (See McGuire, para. 30 &
26 Figs. 3b-3d). McGuire teaches that "[t]here is preferably a low coefficient
6
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
1 of friction between substantially cylindrical valve [ 13 O] and substantially
2 cylindrical body 115 in order to minimize the amount of torque required for
3 actuation of valve assembly 100." (McGuire, para. 29).
4 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify
5 the device of Carrubba, such that the plunger have rotational selected
6 angular range as disclosed in the instant application, in order to minimize the
7 amount of torque required for actuation of valve assembly." (Ans. 5, citing
8 McGuire, para. 29). As the Appellant correctly points out, Carrubba's
9 plunger 210 slides within the valve bore 140. One need not apply any torque
10 to move the plunger. (See App. Br. 7). Even assuming that McGuire is not
11 non-analogous, minimizing torque required to actuate the valve is not a
12 persuasive rationale for combining the teachings of Carrubba and McGuire.
13 (See App. Br. 8).
14 Motush describes a servicing device 20 including and actuator 30
15 having a housing 32 that snaps over a valve of a standard aerosol can 22 (see
16 Motush, col. 7, 11. 19-22) and a button 36 supported by the housing for
17 pressing a valve stem 24 of the aerosol can into the container to open the
18 valve (see Motush, col. 7, 11. 26-31 ). Motush does not teach a plunger
19 independent of the valve stem 24 the valve of the aerosol can 22. To the
20 extent that the valve stem 24 itself may be a "plunger," as that term is used
21 in the appealed claims, Motush does not teach rotating the stem. Thus,
22 Motush fails to remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of
23 Carrubba, Quest and McGuire as applied to claims 1 and 15. We do not
24 sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 35 and
25 36 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carrubba, Quest, McGuire and
26 Motush.
7
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
1 Claim 19 recites a method including steps of "engaging a second
2 portion of the plunger with a portion of a body of the servicing device to
3 inhibit axial movement of the plunger;" and "disengaging the plunger from
4 the portion of the body by rotating the plunger." As discussed above, neither
5 Carrubba nor Motush, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the latter
6 step.
7 Bandy describes a charging valve tool IO including a casing 11 and a
8 shaft 12 having a handle 13 extending outside the casing. A portion of the
9 shaft 12 position within the casing 11 is grooved to provide a fluted or
10 splined surface 14. (See Bandy, col. 2, 11. 27-32 & Fig. 1 ). During use,
11 Bandy teaches coupling the casing 11 to a refrigeration system connection
12 3 5; and then pressing the shaft 12 so that the fluted surface moves through
13 the casing and into engagement with a complementary opening in a plug or
14 cap 43 within the refrigeration system connection. One may then tum the
15 handle to disengage or remove the cap 43 to access the refrigeration system.
16 (See Bandy, col. 3, 11. 2-25 & Fig. 2).
17 The Examiner finds that Bandy "teaches disengaging the plunger from
18 the portion of the body by rotating the plunger." (Ans. 11, citing Bandy, col.
19 3, 11. 2-15). The finding is not persuasive. Bandy teaches rotating the
20 plunger or shaft 12 to disengage a cap 43 from within a refrigeration system.
21 Bandy does not teach disengaging the shaft 12 from any portion of the
22 casing 11. (See App. Br. 15 & 16). Therefore, we do not sustain the
23 rejection of claims 19-21, 26 and 27 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable
24 over Carrubba, Motush and Bandy; nor do we sustain the rejection of claims
25 22 and 23 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carrubba, Motush,
26 Bandy and Quest.
8
1
Appeal2016-006840
Application 13/365,006
2 DECISION
3 We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1--4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 35 and 36
4 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carrubba, Quest, McGuire and
5 Motush; the rejection of claims 19-21, 26 and 27 under§ 103(a) as being
6 unpatentable over Carrubba, Motush and Bandy; or the rejection of claims
7 22 and 23 as being unpatentable over Carrubba, Motush, Bandy and Quest.
REVERSED
9