Ex Parte Hillesheim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2012

10557985 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 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. 10/557,985 09/06/2006 Thorsten Hillesheim 49833 6451 1609 7590 11/29/2012 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,, DC 20036 EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2012 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 THORSTEN HILLESHEIM and PETER BRUCK ____________________ Appeal 2010-002878 Application 10/557,985 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002878 Application 10/557,985 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 13-21. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-9 and 12 were canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal: 10. A valve, comprising: a valve housing including a pump port, a use port and a tank port; a control piston guided for longitudinal movement within said valve housing for selective fluid connection of said pump port to said use port and of said use port to said tank port, said control piston having a connecting channel; a pilot valve in said valve housing having a pilot chamber and a pilot valve part guided for longitudinal movement in said pilot chamber, said connecting channel connecting at least one of said ports with said pilot chamber in fluid communication; a first throttle in said connecting channel in a direction of and upstream of said pilot chamber; and a guide in said connecting channel in a direction of and upstream of said pilot chamber, said guide having at least one deflection channel extending obliquely to said connecting channel to deflect fluid flowing through said connecting channel and said guide away from said pilot valve part. Appeal 2010-002878 Application 10/557,985 3 THE REJECTION Claims 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harms (US 6,286,535 B1; iss. Sep. 11, 2001) and Park (US 6,364,430 B1; iss. Apr. 2, 2002). Ans. 3.1 ANALYSIS Regarding claim 10, the Examiner found Harms discloses a valve comprising each of the claimed limitations except for "a guide . . . having at least one deflection channel extending obliquely to the connecting channel to deflect fluid flowing through the connecting channel and the guide away from the pilot valve part." Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found Park discloses a solenoid valve (citing figs. 13, 15A, 15B) with a guide 520 (piston) having at least one deflection channel 522 (branch passage) extending obliquely to a connecting channel to deflect fluid flowing through the connecting channel and guide away from the pilot valve part. Ans. 4 (see also Park, col. 11, ll. 55-63; fig. 15B). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an atomizer as taught by Park in Harms' valve to have a guide as claimed, to prevent water hammering. Ans. 5 (citing Park, col. 12, ll. 10-15). Appellants contend that neither Harms nor Park discloses a deflection channel extending obliquely to the connecting channel to deflect fluid flowing through the connecting channel and guide away from the pilot valve part. Br. 4-5. Appellants contend that Harms' valve "only has a control flow restriction orifice or throttle 144 that is only axially directed for conveying fluid directly toward the pilot valve part formed by ball valve 228." Br. 6. 1 We treat this rejection as pertaining to only claims 10, 11, and 13-21, as indicated by Appellants. Appeal 2010-002878 Application 10/557,985 4 Regarding Park, Appellants contend that in the embodiment shown in Figure 13, the fluid passes through invariable orifice 311 in magnetic core 306 to enter the valve (seat) receiving space 106a (citing fig. 3) to act directly on plunger 105. Br. 6. Appellants contend that the fluid exiting Park's branch passages 522 and piston 520 only directly enters the fluid pressurizing chamber 112 (citing figs. 3, 3a) between piston 520 and core 306, before passing through the axially oriented orifice 311 and being directed axially directly toward plunger 105 forming its valve part. Id. Appellants contend that Park's branch passages do not correspond to Harms' throttle 144, because "they are not directly exposed to plunger 105 or its chamber 106a, and do not convey fluid directly into the chamber 106a to act on plunger 105." Br. 6-7. Appellants contend that because only Park's orifice 311 passes fluid directly into chamber 106a about its plunger 105, only orifice 311 corresponds to Harms' throttle 144. Br. 7. Appellants further contend that Park's branch passages 522 do not direct fluid away from plunger 105 because branch passage 522 are used in combination with orifice 311 that directs the flow at the plunger 105. Id. Appellants' contentions are persuasive. Park states "in a slip control mode, fluid supplied through the branch passages 522 of the piston 520 is directed to the invariable orifice through the fluid grooves 521." See col. 11, l. 66 â€“ col. 12, l. 2. As such, the branch passages 522 are designed to direct fluid to the fluid grooves 521, through which the fluid is directed to the invariable orifice 311. The fluid that passes through branch passages 522 must pass through the invariable orifice 311. Referring also to Figure 13 of Park, it can be visualized that when piston 520 was used in the valve shown, fluid would pass through branch passages 522 and then be directed by the Appeal 2010-002878 Application 10/557,985 5 invariable orifice 311 axially directly toward the plunger 105, as indicated by the arrow. Park does not disclose that the orientation of the branch passages 522 changes the direction of flow of the fluid that exits from invariable orifice 311. Rather, Park, like Harms, discloses flowing fluid axially from an orifice directly toward a valve ball. The Examiner did not make a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that either Harms or Park discloses "a guide . . . having at least one deflection channel extending obliquely to said connecting channel to deflect fluid flowing through said connecting channel and said guide away from said pilot valve part," as claimed. As such, the Examiner has not articulated an adequate reason supported by a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Harms and Park, or shown that the combination would result in the claimed valve. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, and claims 11 and 13-21, which depend from claim 10. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 11, and 13-21 is REVERSED. REVERSED mls