Ex Parte FRANSON et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2019

14109342 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/109,342 12/17/2013 Scott T. FRANSON
27572 7590 03/05/2019
Harness Dickey (Troy)
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
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.
6065-000027-US-COA 2812
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2019 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):
troymailroom@hdp.com
sto-ptomail@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT T. FRANSON and ANDREW T. THOMPSON
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEN B. BARRETT, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Scott T. Franson and Andrew T. Thompson et al. (Appellants) 1 seek
our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-
22. We heard oral argument on December 17, 2018. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify the Viking Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention pertains to a dry sprinkler assembly,
and, according to the Specification, "the present invention provides a
sprinkler assembly that is suitable for use in an area that is exposed to
freezing conditions and further that incorporates an actuator that reduces the
impedance to the flow of fluid through the sprinkler assembly over
conventional dry sprinklers so that the sprinkler assembly exhibits a stable
K-factor."2 Spec. ,r 13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A dry sprinkler assembly comprising:
a housing having an inlet end, an outlet end, a fluid flow
passage extending from said inlet end to said outlet end, and a
central longitudinal axis along said fluid flow passage, and said
inlet end being adapted for mounting to a fluid supply pipe and
having an inlet port for fluid communication with the fluid
supply pipe;
a sprinkler head assembly having a sprinkler head
mounted to the outlet end of the housing and a trigger
assembly, said sprinkler head being in fluid communication
with said fluid flow passage and having an outlet opening
through which water is directly discharged when the dry
sprinkler assembly is activated; and
an actuator assembly, said actuator assembly having a
sealing subassembly sealing said inlet port, said actuator
assembly being operatively coupled to said trigger assembly
such that said sealing subassembly releases said sealing of said
inlet port in response to said trigger assembly being activated,
and said sealing subassembly moving in a linear path
2 According to the Specification, the K-factor is "the discharge coefficient of
the sprinkler head assembly, which equals the flow of fluid ... through the
passageway of the sprinkler head body divided by the square root of the
pressure of fluid fed into the sprinkler head body." Spec. ,r 53.
2
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
substantially parallel with said central longitudinal axis when
releasing said sealing of said inlet port; and
wherein said sealing subassembly comprises a concave
spring plate having a concave surface facing said inlet port and
a spring plate support, said spring plate support being fixedly
attached to and compressively loading said spring plate axially
against a surface of said inlet end surrounding said inlet port so
as to flatten said spring plate toward a generally planar
orientation when assembled, said spring plate support and said
spring plate being fixed for movement along said central
longitudinal axis so as to be disposed along said central
longitudinal axis both prior to and after said trigger assembly
releases, so that water flowing through said housing flows
around said spring plate fixed along said central longitudinal
axis.
Appeal Br. 24--25 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
The following Examiner's rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention; and
2. Claims 1 and 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Polan. 3
3 In the Final Rejection, the Examiner identifies Polan as both the
Application Publication No. US 2002/0148620 Al, published on October
17, 2002, and as US Patent No. 6,554,077 B2, issued on April 29, 2003.
Final Act. 3. Appellants reference the issued patent in their arguments. E.g.,
Appeal Br. 13, 16. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellants identify any
substantive distinction between the two references. We herein, like
Appellants, refer to the issued patent.
3
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
ANALYSIS
The Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner maintains that the claim phrase "sprinkler head
assembly" is indefinite based on Appellants' arguments as to why certain
components of Polan allegedly fail to constitute claimed features. Final
Act. 3; see also Advisory Act. (6/8/16) 2 ("The indefiniteness rejection was
solely in response to Applicant's argument."). The Examiner states, for
example, "Applicant provides no reason why Polan's deflector 40 and
ring 32 do not constitute a sprinkler head[;] Applicant merely alleges so."
Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, in light of Appellants' arguments,
"it is uncertain what constitutes a 'sprinkler head assembly' [and i]t is
uncertain what characteristic the prior art must possess or must not possess
in order to constitute a 'sprinkler head assembly."' Id. at 3; see also id. at 5.
The Examiner finds that the Specification does not provide a definition for
the phrase. Id. at 5.
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications by giving
the claims "their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification" and by reading the claim language "in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
( citations omitted). "Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a
rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not
clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is
unclear." Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566,
4
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
at *2 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (citing, inter alia, In re Packard,
751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam)).
In effect, the Examiner offers this indefiniteness rejection in the
alternative and in the interest of compact prosecution in order to address the
possibility that Appellants' characterizations of the claimed subject matter
would be adopted. For the reasons discussed below, we do not adopt
Appellants' characterizations of "sprinkler head assembly."
In support of their arguments, Appellants-rather than following the
traditional route by citing to a conventional technical dictionary----direct our
attention to the description of "sprinkler head" used for purposes of patent
classification, specifically referring to U.S. Class 169, Subclass 37. Appeal
Br. 13. The current description for Subclass 73, "Sprinkler Heads," in
Class 169, "Fire Extinguishers," is:
Thermally-controlled discharge elements or outlets for
extinguishing fluid, comprising a nozzle, a valve or closure
member therefor, and means for normally holding the valve in
closing position and automatically releasing or opening it upon
an increase of temperature.
See Appeal Br. 13 (quoting the same). For purposes of this decision only,
we will assume that this description of a "sprinkler head" represents the
ordinary meaning of that term to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention.
As indicated by the limited record before us (specifically, the patent
classification description), the ordinary and customary meaning of "sprinkler
head" is an outlet for extinguishing fluid having a nozzle, a valve, and means
for automatically opening the valve upon an increase of temperature. In
other words and in a general sense, one of ordinary skill would consider a
5
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
sprinkler head to be the entire apparatus extending from the fluid supply
connection to the nozzle that serves as the ultimate outlet of the
extinguishing fluid. However, when reading the claims in light of the
Specification, one of ordinary skill would recognize that Appellants are not
using the phrases "sprinkler head" and "sprinkler head assembly" in the
conventional sense but as broad labels applied to certain components of the
overall claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a "dry sprinkler assembly" comprising three major
components: 1) a housing having an inlet end and an outlet end, with the
inlet end being adapted for mounting to a fluid supply pipe; 2) a sprinkler
head assembly having a sprinkler head mounted to the outlet end of the
housing; and 3) an actuator assembly. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).
Thus, the "sprinkler head assembly" is a subcomponent of the overall
claimed "dry sprinkler assembly." The pertinent limitation specifically
recites:
a sprinkler head assembly having a sprinkler head
mounted to the outlet end of the housing and a trigger
assembly, said sprinkler head being in fluid communication
with said fluid flow passage and having an outlet opening
through which water is directly discharged when the dry
sprinkler assembly is activated; and
Id. (emphasis added) 4• Notably, the recited "sprinkler head assembly" of
claim 1 does not identify explicitly a valve as part of that assembly.
Consistent with the claim's recitation of the "actuator assembly" having "a
sealing subassembly sealing said inlet port," the Specification indicates that
4 The other rejected independent claims contain the same or similar
recitation.
6
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
the valve, i.e. that "which controls the flow of fire suppressant into
housing 14 and through sprinkler head assembly 12" is positioned in the
housing and not in the claimed "sprinkler head." Spec. ,r 55; see Appeal
Br. 19 (Appellants arguing that claim 1 defines a dry sprinkler assembly
where the inlet port is sealed at the end of the housing opposite that of the
sprinkler head.). A portion of Figure 1 of Appellants' application is shown
below.
Figure 1 is a an exploded perspective view of a dry sprinkler assembly, and
the portion shown above depicts, inter alia, sprinkler head 24, sprinkler head
assembly 12, trigger assembly 26 (including bulb 29 and holder 30), and
washer 31. Spec. ,r,r 15, 55, 57. As can be seen in Figure 1, "sprinkler
head" 24 is a single component rather than a compilation of components as
one of ordinary skill would expect for a sprinkler head under the ordinary
meaning of that term. See also Fig. 3; cf Spec. ,r,r 55, 57-58 (describing
sprinkler head 24 as a component threaded into the outlet end of housing 24
and as having frame 24a and base 40 but not as comprising multiple,
separate components). Claim 1 defines the sprinkler head as "having an
outlet opening through which water is directly discharged," thus making the
single-component "sprinkler head" analogous to the "nozzle" of the patent
7
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
classification description. Cf Appeal Br. 13 (Appellants arguing that "the
US classification definition is consistent with the sprinkler head assembly 12
as disclosed in the present application which includes a nozzle defined by an
opening 28 in the sprinkler head 24."). Similarly, Figure 1 depicts, and the
Specification describes, "sprinkler head assembly" 24 as having certain
components, but not a valve. See Spec. ,r,r 55-565.
Claim 1 does not use term "sprinkler head assembly" in the same
manner as the ordinary and customary meaning, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that when reading the claims in light of the
Specification. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
"sprinkler head assembly" in claim 1 is broader in scope than the ordinary
meaning of the term and means the assembly having: 1) a nozzle-i.e. the
recited "sprinkler head" having the outlet opening for directly discharging
the water from the dry sprinkler assembly-and 2) a trigger assembly.
Accordingly, we find no fault with the Examiner's conclusions that, under
5 We are not persuaded by Appellants' conclusory assertion, Appeal Br. 13-
14, that components of the trigger assembly, namely holder 30 (for glass
bulb 29) and washer 31, should be considered a valve that is part of the
"sprinkler head assembly." While we recognize that Paragraph 56 of the
Specification refers to the operation of the trigger assembly as opening the
outlet opening 28 of sprinkler head 24, that paragraph also explains that the
operation of that trigger assembly results in actuator assembly 15 opening
water inlet opening 18a, which is not within the claimed "sprinkler
assembly" but is at the opposite end of the "housing." Prior to activation,
there would be no water at outlet opening 28 of sprinkler head 24 to seal (i.e.
valve out). One of ordinary skill would consider the sealing subsassembly,
which seals the water inlet port, to be the "valve." See Spec. ,r 70 (in
operation, "[ s ]pring plate 22 will be unseated from annular seat 90" which
allows fluid to flow).
8
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
the broadest reasonable interpretation, "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art
understands that a sprinkler head assembly [as claimed by Appellants] is an
assembly that is the head of a sprinkler," Ans. 3--4, and that "Appellant has
defined the sprinkler head assembly as being made up of a sprinkler head
and a trigger assembly," id. at 5.
While the Examiner's concerns over the definiteness of the claims has
some merit, we, on this record, cannot conclude that the meaning of
"sprinkler head assembly" lacks adequate clarity to a person of ordinary skill
in the art reading the claims in light of the Specification. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellants "appear[] to be applying an undisclosed subjective
definition to the term 'sprinkler head assembly."' Ans. 4. However, it also
appears that Appellants' arguments are only assertions made in attempting to
distinguish the claims over the prior art, and are not indicative of the
objective understanding of the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention. Because we do not conclude that the claims lack adequate
clarity from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art reading
the claims in light of the Specification, we cannot sustain the indefiniteness
rejection 6.
6 We understand the rejection to solely be under the indefiniteness prong of
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as opposed to the requirement to set
forth the subject matter that the inventor regards as the invention, see, e.g.,
MPEP §§ 2171-2172. Final Act. 3 ("This indefiniteness rejection"); Ans.
3--4 (referring to "the indefiniteness rejection" but also stating "it is
uncertain what Appellant considers to be the claimed invention.").
Accordingly, we reach only the indefiniteness rejection.
9
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
The Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-22 as anticipated by Polan.
Appellants argue the rejected claims as a group and offer additional
arguments for dependent claim 10. See Appeal Br. 16, 20. For the
arguments pertaining to all of the rejected claims, we select claim 1 as the
representative claim. We consider separately the additional arguments
pertaining to dependent claim 10.
The Anticipation Rejection of Claim 1
Claim 1, as mentioned above, recites a "dry sprinkler assembly"
comprising three major components: 1) a housing having an inlet end and
an outlet end, 2) a sprinkler head assembly having a sprinkler head mounted
to the outlet end of the housing, and 3) an actuator assembly. Appeal Br. 24
(Claims Appendix). The inlet end of the housing is configured for mounting
to a fluid supply pipe and has an inlet port for the fluid supply, and the
actuator assembly has a sealing subassembly sealing the inlet port. Id. The
sprinkler head has "an outlet opening through which water is directly
discharged when the dry sprinkler assembly is activated." Id.
Appellants argue that Polan does not disclose a dry sprinkler
assembly, Appeal Br. 16, as recited in the preamble of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 16. Appellants also argue that the Examiner incorrectly identifies certain
structures in Polan as the claimed "housing," "sprinkler head assembly," and
"outlet opening [in the sprinkler head]." Id. at 17-22.
Polan is directed to sprinkler arrangements. Polan, 1 :6-10. Figure 1,
as annotated, and Figure 7 are shown below.
10
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
~to ~ 14.: \ 's..~t
,, 21 l / . '~~ __ ::; __ J __ , : -+:--~" . r r ---- $"
·~;::~~~,~~;;'~
> o ------- cr..tii~- . 'fk~-- ' D\) / 72-'.,,_,-'C_ijf:>it \\ -"~-96
('4 L! ,:L,--~"'--,::;:--- :1,8
10\J
FIG, 1
Figure 1 depicts a longitudinal sectional view of a quick response automatic
sprinkler arrangement, with annotations in the form of circles around certain
element numbers. See Polan, 2:43-44. Figure 7 illustrates the position of
the sprinkler components after activation of the sprinkler and after retaining
assembly 50 is ejected from sprinkler body 12. Id. at 2:56-57, 4:24-26.
"[R Jing 32 ... is threaded into internal threads 34 in a cylindrical
projection 36 of the housing." Id. at 3:29-31.
The Examiner finds, in pertinent part, that "Polan discloses a sprinkler
head assembly having a sprinkler head 40 (including ring 32) ... and having
an outlet opening ( opening at 90) through which water is directly discharged
when the dry sprinkler assembly is activated." Final Act. 4. In response to
Appellants' arguments, the Examiner states:
11
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a sprinkler head
assembly [ of the claimed invention] is an assembly that is the
head of a sprinkler. Polan's sprinkler head 40 (including ring
32) is a sprinkler head because they are at the terminal end and
projects from body 12 like a head. Trigger assembly 60,
sprinkler head 40 (including ring 32) make up the sprinkler
head assembly. Water issues out of the opening at groove 90 of
ring 32 and is deflected by deflector 40.
Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that, "[i]n Polan, the sealing
subassembly that includes a concave spring plate 18 and spring plate
support 94 seals the inlet port (the upstream end of the fluid flow passage of
housing 36)." Advisory Act. 4.
Appellants' first argument pertains to the claim's preamble. The
preamble of claim 1 recites "[a] dry sprinkler assembly" followed by the
transition term "comprising," which is followed by almost a page and a half
of limitations defining the structure of the dry sprinkler assembly. See
Appeal Br. 24--25 (Claims Appendix). As mentioned, Appellants argue that
Polan does not disclose a dry sprinkler assembly. Id. at 16. The claimed
apparatus, according to Appellants, "include[ s] the characteristic elements of
a dry sprinkler assembly." Id. Appellants refers to a sprinkler handbook,
and impliedly argue that the handbook identifies certain characteristics of
dry sprinkler assemblies that should be considered distinguishing limitations
in the claims. See id. Notably, Appellants' proposed "characteristics"
include, inter alia, an ambiguous and subjective intent element directed to
the use of a sprinkler in an environment where certain components are in a
warm area and some are in a cold area. See id. ("Contrary to this, the
sprinkler assembly of Polan '077 does not include a housing or nipple that is
intended to extend into an unheated area from a wet pipe system." ( emphasis
12
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
added)); Reply Br. 7 ("Applicants submit that the present claims require a
housing with an inlet end defining an inlet port and an outlet end that is
intended to extend into an unheated area from a wet pipe system .... "
(emphasis added)); cf Ans. 4 (the Examiner concluding that "[t]he term
'dry,' at most, indicates the intended use of the sprinkler assembly.").
Appellants do not tie these concepts of intended use in warm and cold areas
to any particular recitations in the claim other than the preamble's "dry
sprinkler assembly." Additionally, it is not clear to us that the relied-upon
handbook is in the record that was before the Examiner. See id. at 34
(Evidence Appendix not listing the handbook).
On the facts of this case, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion
that the preamble of claim 1 does not impart structural limitations beyond
those explicitly stated in the body of the claim, and we agree with the
Examiner's finding that, even if the preamble did impart an intended use
limitation, "Polan's sprinkler ring 32 and all elements downstream thereof
are capable of extending into an unheated area while washer seal 18 and all
elements upstream thereof are positioned in a heated area above the
unheated area." Ans. 4. We decline to read Appellants' proposed
"characteristics" into the claim as structural limitations.
Claim 1 also recites a "sprinkler head ... having an outlet opening
through which water is directly discharged." Appellants argue that "the
opening at groove 90 [in Polan's ring 32] does not define an 'outlet opening'
as is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art" and that "[a]n outlet
opening of a sprinkler head assembly is only reasonably interpreted as the
opening through which the water is discharged." Appeal Br. 19. Appellants
argue that the "outlet opening" in Polan is internal axial passageway 14 at
13
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
the location where the water normally is sealed (at shoulder 24). Id.
at 19, 22 ( arguing, in a conclusory fashion and without citation to any
support, "one having ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that the
distal end of the flow passage 14 is the outlet opening through which the
water is directly discharged."); see Polan, 3: 12-20, Fig. 1. Appellants
contend this is so based on the speculative assertion that, in Polan, water
only travels through but does not contact ring 32 after exiting the internal
axial passageway 14. Appeal Br. 19; cf Ans. 5---6 (characterizing
Appellants' arguments as speculative"). Building on that argument,
Appellants assert that spacing of the inlet port from the outlet opening is
what distinguishes a dry sprinkler from a regular sprinkler and Polan cannot
be a dry sprinkler because it allegedly has the inlet port and outlet in the
same location. See Appeal Br. 19. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments and agree with the Examiner's finding that the open end of
Polan's ring 32, near groove 90, is the claimed "outlet opening through
which water is directly discharged." Even Appellants seemingly admit that
the water impinging upon Polan's deflector 40 is that discharged from the
sprinkler. See Reply Br. 8 ("A deflector as is clearly understood by one
having ordinary skill in the art is mounted to a sprinkler head and disperses
the fluid that is released from a nozzle or outlet of the sprinkler body; the
deflector 40 is clearly not a sprinkler head.").
We also agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the sprinkler
head, the sprinkler head assembly, and the housing. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5
("Polan's deflector 40 and ring 32 constitute a sprinkler head because they
are at the terminal end and project from body 12 like a head. Polan's
sprinkler head ( deflector 40 and ring 32) and trigger assembly (temperature
14
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
sensitive device 60) make up the currently claimed sprinkler head
assembly."). The Examiner, Final Act. 4, correctly identified Polan's
cylindrical projection 36 as the claimed "housing"; it is a structure that is a
fluid passage extending from the fluid inlet to the structure that is the
"sprinkler head assembly." See Ans. 7 (The Examiner, in addressing
Appellants' "housing" and "sprinkler head assembly" arguments, stating
"the prior art need not refer to the elements using the same terms as
Appellant's claim terms."). Appellants' arguments are tied in large part to
the flawed assertion that the discharge of the Polan's sprinkler occurs at the
sealing location and Appellants' subjective and unreasonable labeling of
Polan's components, and thus, are not persuasive of error.
We have considered all of Appellants' remaining arguments but do
not find them persuasive. E.g., Appeal Br. 20 (arguing that "a deflector by
any reasonable interpretation is not a sprinkler head assembly, but is merely
a portion of a sprinkler head assembly" while acknowledging that the
Examiner's finding is that Polan's deflector 40 is a portion of the sprinkler
head assembly); see id. at 17.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22.
The Anticipation Rejection of Dependent Claim 10
Appellants present additional arguments for dependent claim 10,
which depends directly from dependent claim 9. Appeal Br. 20; see also
Reply Br. 12. Claim 9 depends indirectly from independent claim 5, which
is somewhat similar to independent claim 1. Claim 9 further limits the
actuator assembly by requiring collinear members, each having a passage
with the "passages being in communication and forming another portion of
15
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
said fluid flow passage." Appeal Br. 27 (Claims Appendix). Claim 10
further recites that the "members include a tubular member." Id. at 28.
The Examiner, in the Final Office Action, identifies the flow passage
in Polan as between angularly spaced legs 30 of tripod member 28 and
around outer surface 44 of post 22. Final Act. 4; see Polan, 3:24--25, 35-37.
The Examiner, in that Final Action, does not make an explicit finding
regarding the "tubular" aspect of dependent claim 10. Appellants argue that
neither of Polan's elements 30 or 44 is a tubular member defining a portion
of the flow passage. Appeal Br. 20.
The Examiner responds in the Answer with the finding that:
The actuator assembly [in Polan] comprises a plurality of
collinear members 28, 22. Each of the members having a
passage. Tripod 28 has a passage for post 22. Post 22 has a
passage for pin 68. They form a portion of the fluid flow
passage because they are within the fluid flow passage. Post 22
is a tubular member because the section that accommodates
pin 68 is tubular.
Ans. 6. Accordingly, we understand the Examiner to find that the structure
in post 22 into which fits pin 68 is the claimed tubular member. That
structure is axial recess 70 in central post 22, and accepts locking pin 68 of
separable valve-retaining assembly 50 (that portion of the overall assembly
that is ejected upon activation). See Polan, 3 :38-51. Figure 1 depicts axial
recess 70 as a blind hole. Polan, Fig. 1; see also id., Fig. 7. We are not
persuaded of the correctness of the Examiner's finding that post 22 having
axial recess 70 "form a portion of the fluid flow passage because they are
within the fluid flow passage." Ans. 6. The Examiner has not established
that axial recess 70 constitutes the tubular member as claimed. As such, we
cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claim 10.
16
Appeal2017-003469
Application 14/109,342
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner's rejection of 1-22 as being indefinite is reversed. The
Examiner's rejection of claim 10 as anticipated by Polan is reversed. The
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22 as anticipated by Polan is
affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2 and 10 is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17