Ex Parte Collado et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2018

14189031 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/189,031 02/25/2014 Pedro Collado 40582 7590 05/01/2018 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 9502 2425 EXAMINER ARUNDALE, ROBERT K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2018 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 PEDRO COLLADO, DAMIEN GERMANI, and PHILLIPPE RUDNIANYN 1 Appeal2017-003054 Application 14/189,031 Technology Center 3700 Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3---6. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). 1 Appellants' Appeal Brief lists L' Air Liquide as the real party in interest. Br. 3. 2 Claims 2 and 7 have been cancelled. Br. 10-11 (Claims App.). Appeal2017-003054 Application 14/189,031 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to "gas pressure reduction valves of the piston type including a safety valve at the reduction piston." Spec. 1 :31-32. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A pressure reducing valve for compressed gas, comprising a body (1) housing a gas circuit (11) comprising an inlet (3) intended to be put in communication with gas at high pressure and an outlet ( 5) intended to be connected to a downstream circuit, the gas circuit ( 11) comprising a mechanism for reducing the pressure of the gas between the inlet (3) and outlet ( 5) to a given pressure level, the reduction mechanism comprising a reduction piston (7) movable in the body (1) and sealingly delimiting a reduction chamber (16) via a gasket (15), the reduction piston (7) being able to move in translation in an upstream/ downstream direction and acted on by a first return member (10), the pressure reducing valve (100) comprising a safety valve for preventing a rise in the pressure in the reduction chamber (16) beyond a given threshold, the safety valve comprising a discharge orifice ( 6) for the gas, the discharge orifice ( 6) being selectively in communication with the reduction chamber (16) when the reduction piston (7) reaches a given limit downstream position under the effect of the pressure in the reduction chamber ( 16), wherein the gasket ( 15) is disposed in a fixed housing of the body (1) and cooperates sealingly with the reduction piston (7) when the reduction piston (7) has not reached its given limit downstream position, and wherein gasket ( 15) no longer cooperates sealingly with the reduction piston when the reduction piston (7) has reached its given limit downstream position. Br. 10 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal2017-003054 Application 14/189,031 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Clifford Hilberer US 8,459,297 B2 EP 1 364 849 A2 REJECTION June 11, 2013 May 23, 2002 Claims 1 and 3---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hilberer and Clifford. OPINION The Examiner finds that Hilberer discloses all the elements required by claim 1, except that gasket 34 of Hilberer is not "disposed in a fixed housing of the body," and the Examiner relies on Clifford to remedy this deficiency. Final Act. 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner finds "Clifford teaches a fluid regulator wherein an intake valve is controlled in relation to a spring biased piston (54) wherein an 0-ring seal is located between a wall of a housing and the biased piston." Id. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify the sealing arrangement in Hilberer such that gasket 34 was in the wall of the housing, rather than in the piston, because (i) the arrangement in Clifford is a known equivalent and (ii) such a modification would have been a mere rearrangement of parts involving only routine skill. Appellants summarize the disclosure of Hilberer and then point out how this disclosure differs from the arrangement recited in claim 1. Br. 5-8. Specifically, Appellants state, "[it is] clear, that when the piston (20) [of 3 Appeal2017-003054 Application 14/189,031 Hilberer] has reached t[h]e downstream limit (i.e.[,] the position in which the overpressure vents) the gasket (34) remains in contact with the cylinder wall, and simply allows the overpressurized fluid to escape from vent channel 46. This overpressure venting is not dependent upon the lack of pressure sealing from the o-ring (34)." Id. at 7-8 (emphasis added). This argument does not apprise us of Examiner error inasmuch as claim 1 does not exclude all contact between the gasket and its opposing sealing surface when the piston has reached its given limit downstream position. Rather, claim 1 requires that, in this particular position, the gasket no longer cooperates sealingly with the reduction piston. As Appellants point out, gasket 34 of Hilberer, when in a particular position, allows fluid to escape in order to relieve an over-pressurized state. Further, Hilberer, as modified, would not have the gasket on the piston; rather, the gasket would be on the stationary component. Appellants do not explain persuasively why more is required in order for the Examiner's proposed modification to Hilberer to meet the requirements of claim 1. Appellants also contend that "[t]he examiner's 'modification' of Hilberer, that is to say placing the gasket within a groove in the valve body, would render the design, as clearly presented in the figures and the description, inoperable." Id. at 8. In reply, the Examiner states "Appellant does not actually provide any support for the position that modifying Hilberer in view of Clifford would render Hilberer inoperable. It is the Examiner's position that Hilberer in view of Clifford would provide a device which would maintain the operation and function intended by Hilberer." Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that "merely moving the position of the gasket as taught in Clifford so as to 4 Appeal2017-003054 Application 14/189,031 reside in the wall of the body of Hilberer as taught in Clifford would not make Hilberer inoperable and would merely be an alternative sealing arrangement as previously indicated in the Final [A]ction." Id. at 9. We agree with the Examiner on this point. Appellants provide no explanation as to why changing the position of the gasket in Hilberer as proposed would present any problem in the function of Hilberer's pressure- limiting device, much less as to why this device would no longer be operable in such an arrangement. Appellants next contend a person of ordinary skill in the art "would recognize that the pressure relief mechanism presented in Hilberer is fundamentally different from the instant pressure relief mechanism. The examiner is exercising impermissible hindsight in modifying the perfectly workable design in Hilberer to conform to the basically different instant design." Br. 8. In response, the Examiner reiterates the rationales set forth on page 3 of the Final Action. Ans. 9. Appellants' argument on this point is unavailing because it does not point to any deficiency in either of the rationales provided by the Examiner, which we find are supported by adequate underpinnings. In other words, Appellants do not explain sufficiently why the difference in the arrangement in Hilberer, which is acknowledged by the Examiner, means that the proposed modification is anything other than the substitution of one functional equivalent for another or the mere rearrangement of parts as stated by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Hilberer and Clifford. Appellants make no 5 Appeal2017-003054 Application 14/189,031 additional arguments for claims 3---6, which require all the features recited in claim 1. See Br. 5-8. Accordingly, claims 3---6 fall with claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3---6 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 6