Ex Parte Crowley

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 2014

11727075 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL CROWLEY ____________________ Appeal 2012-003431 Application 11/727,075 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-003431 Application 11/727,075 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-15.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. As described in Appellant’s Specification, the “invention seeks to provide an aircraft refuelling system that allows the refuelling rate to be increased while not prejudicing the safety of the fuel tank integrity during refuelling in the overflow condition” (Spec. 3, l. 31 – 4, l. 2). Claims 1, 10, and 14 are the only independent claims. EXEMPLARY CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claims on appeal. 1. An aircraft refuelling system of an aircraft, the system comprising a refuelling connector mounted as part of the aircraft and configured to detachably connect to a fuel outlet of a fuel supply apparatus separate from the aircraft, and a fuel pressure regulator having an inlet in communication with a fuel inlet of the refuelling connector and having an outlet in communication with refueling pipework of the aircraft, wherein the fuel pressure regulator regulates the maximum pressure of fuel in the refuelling pipework when fuel is being passed into the refuelling pipework from the fuel inlet of the refuelling connector. 1 Our decision will refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed March 23, 2007) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 13, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 27, 2011). Appeal 2012-003431 Application 11/727,075 3 REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Thompson (US 6,347,639 B1, iss. Feb. 19, 2002) and MacGregor (US 2,771,090, iss. Nov. 20, 1956); claims 6, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Thompson, MacGregor, and Appellant’s admitted prior art; and claims 3-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Thompson, MacGregor, and Cutler (US 2006/0278761 A1, pub. Dec. 14, 2006). ANALYSIS In the rejection of claim 1, The Examiner relies on Thompson to teach the claim limitation: a fuel pressure regulator having an inlet in communication with a fuel inlet of the refuelling connector and having an outlet in communication with refueling pipework of the aircraft, wherein the fuel pressure regulator regulates the maximum pressure of fuel in the refuelling pipework when fuel is being passed into the refuelling pipework from the fuel inlet of the refuelling connector (Ans. 4) (emphasis added). In particular, the Examiner states: Thompson discloses . . . a fuel pressure regulator (18 including 42) having an inlet (36 leads to 20) in communication with a fuel inlet of the refueling connector and having an outlet (outlet under 40) in communication with refueling pipework (36+50) of the aircraft, wherein the fuel pressure regulator regulates the maximum pressure Appeal 2012-003431 Application 11/727,075 4 (at least in 36) of fuel in the refueling pipework when fuel is being passed into the refueling pipework from the fuel inlet of the refueling connector (See [c]olumn 4, [l]ines 38-47) (id.) (emphasis added). Appellant points out, however, that: [T]he purported “fuel pressure regulator (18 including 42)” identified by the Examiner does not serve to regulate maximum pressure of fuel in either air separation tank 16 or fuel tank 14. Rather, it opens only when pressure on the diaphragm from the fluid in the air separation tank 16 reaches a certain level and then remains open, permitting the pressure in both tanks 14 and 16 to increase without limit. Thus, Examiner has failed to identify any “pressure regulator” as set forth in the pending claims (App. Br. 9). We agree with Appellant that the portion of Thompson cited by the Examiner states that the outflow regulation portion 18 opens and closes based on the pressure in tank 16, but does not regulate a maximum pressure in pipework. Thus, based on the foregoing, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1. Appellant argues independent claims 10 and 14, which include similar limitations as claim 1, with claim 1. Thus, we reverse the rejection of claims 10 and 14 for reasons similar to those discussed above. We also reverse the rejections of claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15 that depend from the independent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 is REVERSED. REVERSED mls