Ex Parte Henriksson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2012

10592601 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

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. 10/592,601 11/21/2006 Stig Roland Henriksson 06634/LH 2320 1933 7590 12/12/2012 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC 220 Fifth Avenue 16TH Floor NEW YORK, NY 10001-7708 EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/12/2012 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 STIG ROLAND HENRIKSSON ____________ Appeal 2010-008596 Application 10/592,601 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, REMY J. VANOPHEM, and GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Stig Roland Henriksson (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-008596 Application 10/592,601 2 THE INVENTION The claimed invention relates to “a hydraulic hammer having a distribution valve with an improved tightness for a more efficient hammer action.” Spec. 1, ll. 29-31. Claim 1 (the sole independent claim), reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A hydraulic hammer comprising: a housing with a cylinder bore and a guide sleeve for a working implement, a reciprocating hammer piston reciprocated in the cylinder bore, and a distribution valve for directing pressure fluid to the hammer piston, wherein said distribution valve comprises: a valve bore with a pressure fluid inlet communicating with the pressure fluid source and a pressure fluid outlet communicating with one drive side of the hammer piston, and a valve element sealingly guided in the valve bore for controlling a flow of pressure fluid between said inlet and said outlet, wherein said distribution valve includes: a primary seal means including an axially facing valve seat in said valve bore and a contact surface on said valve element for sealing contact with said valve seat, and a secondary seal means including a cylindrical envelope surface on said valve element for clearance sealing relative to said valve bore, and wherein said primary and secondary seal means are arranged in series to seal off pressure fluid communication between said inlet and said outlet. Appeal 2010-008596 Application 10/592,601 3 THE PRIOR ART The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Arndt US 5,038,668 Aug. 13, 1991 Giordano US 5,549,031 Aug. 27, 1996 THE REJECTION Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Giordano in view of Arndt. OPINION With regard to claim 1, the Examiner has found that Giordano discloses the claimed subject matter except that “it does not clearly show a secondary seal means (valve outer surface).” However, the Examiner has taken the position that “Arndt teaches a distribution valve (20) including a primary seal means (valve seat) and a secondary seal means (valve outer surface) as shown in Figure 1 wherein the primary seal means and the secondary seal means are arranged in series and capable of sealing off fluid communication ports.” Ans. 3. The Examiner then concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify Giordano by replacing the distribution valve with Arndt’s distribution valve in order to maintain a sealing effect on the fluid communication ports.” Id. Among the arguments advanced by the Appellant is that in Giordano “there is no ‘flow of fluid pressure between inlet duct (10) and outlet (18)’” (Reply Br. 3), because duct 18 is used to control the position of shuttle 5 by acting on “the shank 5a of the shuttle 5” (Reply Br. 4). The Appellant also argues that Giordano “provides no support” for the Examiner’s assertion (on Appeal 2010-008596 Application 10/592,601 4 page 5 of the Answer) that “valve element 5 is sealingly guided in the bore (24), sealing with the large diameter body portion in contact with valve seat (6) and controlling the flow of fluid pressure between the inlet duct (10) and outlet (18).” Reply Br. 4. Moreover, the Appellant asserts that “Giordano contains no written disclosure of sealing contact between the shuttle 5 and the cap 6” (Reply Br. 4-5), and “it simply cannot be determined from the drawings of Giordano that the shuttle 5 has a contact surface for sealing contact with a valve seat on the cap 6” (Reply Br. 5). Among the components recited in claim 1 is a distribution valve comprising a valve bore and a valve element “sealingly guided in the valve bore ,” “a primary seal means including an axially facing valve seat in said valve bore and a contact surface on said valve element for sealing contact with said valve seat,” and “a secondary seal means including a cylindrical envelope surface on said valve element for sealing relative to said valve bore” (all emphasis added). As set forth above, the Examiner has concluded that this structure is disclosed in Giordano, except for “clearly” showing the required secondary sealing means. However, our review of Giordano confirms not only that there is no disclosure of a cylindrically oriented secondary seal means between the valve element and the valve bore, as admitted by the Examiner, but also that there is no disclosure of the axially oriented “primary seal means,” which the Examiner stated was present in Giordano. The only mention in Giordano that any component has a sealing relationship with any other component is “a shank 5a sealingly sliding within cap 6” (Col. 2, l. 20), which is referring to a piston-like element 5a mounted in an opening in cap 6, upon the head surface 19 on which pressurized fluid acts through switch duct 18 to drive shuttle 5 to the left (as Appeal 2010-008596 Application 10/592,601 5 shown in Fig. 2) at the end of the descending stroke of piston 4. See col. 3, ll. 38-44. Thus, there is no support for the Examiner’s conclusion that shuttle 5 is “sealingly guided” in the valve bore, that the large body portion of shuttle 5 is in “sealing” contact with cap 6, or that the cylindrical envelope is in “sealing” relation with the valve bore. Nor are such teachings present in the distribution valve described in Arndt. While Arndt specifically discloses seal means provided between the walls of gas chamber 5 and percussion piston 1 and annular piston 8 (see, for example, col. 6, ll. 10-13), no sealing relationships are disclosed between the cylindrical slide 20 and the bore 19 in which it moves, and between the end face 19b of the bore and the contact surface on slide 20. In view of the above-described deficiencies, even considering, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to replace the distribution valve of Giordano with that of Arndt, as asserted by the Examiner, the resulting structure would not meet the terms of claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-7 as being unpatentable over Giordano in view of Arndt is reversed. REVERSED Klh