Ex Parte Hodges

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

12906222 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/906,222 10/18/2010
22827 7590 10/28/2016
DORITY & MANNING, PA
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth Andrew Hodges
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.
GWZ-28 9688
EXAMINER
MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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 KENNETH ANDREW HODGES
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI,ARTHURM. PESLAK, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kenneth Andrew Hodges (Appellant) 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's Non-Final decision transmitted on December 12, 2013
("Non-Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-21. 2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Graham-White
Manufacturing Company. App. Br. 2. References herein to the Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") are to the replacement brief filed on May 15, 2014.
2 Claim 4 is canceled. Id.
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention "generally involves a system and
method for operating a drain valve." Spec. ,-r 1. Claims 1 and 15,
reproduced below from pages 1 and 2, respectively, of the Appeal Brief,
Claims Appendix (with paragraph structure modified), are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A drain valve comprising:
a. a valve body, wherein said valve body defmes an inlet
seat and a frrst outlet seat downstream of said inlet seat;
b. a frrst member, wherein said frrst member has a frrst
position in sealing engagement with said frrst outlet seat and a
second position separated from said frrst outlet seat;
c. a second member, wherein said second member has a
frrst location in sealing engagement with said inlet seat; and
d. a sensor downstream of said inlet seat, wherein said
sensor generates a signal reflective of a pressure downstream of
said inlet seat.
15. A method for operating a drain valve comprising:
a. moving a frrst element in a valve body to allow fluid flow
through said valve body;
b. moving a second element in said valve body to allow
fluid flow through said valve body;
c. sensing a pressure in said valve body.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated byRasmussen(US 5,531,241, iss. July 2, 1996).
2
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14--18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Frantz (US 3,262,464, iss. July 26, 1966).
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rasmussen and Frantz.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frantz and Rasmussen.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frantz, Hunt (US 4,972,872, iss. Nov. 27, 1990), and
Rasmussen.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Based on Rasmussen
Claims 1-3 and 5-8
The Examiner fmds that Rasmussen discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 1, including, inter alia, a valve body(drain valve 10)3
defming an inlet seat (within the valve above condensate inlet port 17 A) and
a frrst outlet seat (valve seat 41) downstream from the inlet seat. Non-Final
Act. 4; see also Ans. 13. Appellant traverses, arguing that the Examiner has
misconstrued the term "valve body." App. Br. 9. According to Appellant,
"valve body" means "'an outer casing that contains the internal parts of a
valve"' (id. at 7, 9), and, therefore, Rasmussen fails to disclose a valve body,
and the inlet seat identified by the Examiner is within a different valve body
than the frrst outlet seat. Id. at 9-1 O; see also Reply Br. 3--4.
3 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of the cited references.
3
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
The propriety of this rejection is determined by whether or not the
valve (the "unlabeled valve") illustrated in Rasmussen Figure 7 above inlet
port 17 A (see Reply Br. 4) can properly be considered to be a part of
Rasmussen's drain valve body. The Examiner finds that it can, while
Appellant argues it cannot. We think the Examiner has the better position.
The unlabeled valve is illustrated in Figure 7 as being connected to,
and therefore allowing or preventing flow into, inlet port 17 A. As such, the
seat of the unlabeled valve would be "an internal part" of and contained
within the "outer casing" of drain valve 10. As correctly noted by the
Examiner (see Ans. 13), the positioning ofRasmussen's unlabeled valve is
similar to the positioning of Appellant's second member 16, which extends
away from valve body 12, ostensibly to allow second member 16 to be
controlled via hand wheel 38. Spec. ,-r 21, Fig. 1. We therefore fmd the
Examiner's interpretation of the unlabeled valve as part of the body of drain
valve 10 to be reasonable based on the disclosure in the Specification. As
such, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us why Appellant's second
member 16 can be considered part of the valve body while Rasmussen's
unlabeled valve cannot.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affrrm the rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as of its dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-8, as
being anticipated by Rasmussen.
Claims 15-20
The Examiner fmds that Rasmussen discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 15 similarly as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 13. Appellant traverses, presenting
4
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
arguments similar to those presented with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 1 O;
Reply Br. 4--5. For the same reasons as presented above, we also affrrm the
rejection of claim 15, as well as ofits dependent claims 16-20, as being
anticipated by Rasmussen.
Anticipation Based on Frantz
Claims 1, 2, and 21
The Examiner fmds that Frantz discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 1, including, inter alia, a valve body (base section 4, seat
insert 23, and upper section 25 in combination) including an inlet seat (valve
seat 50) and a sensor (piston stem 14 and piston head 18 in combination)
downstream from the inlet seat. Non-Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner
expounds that "[Frantz' s] head 18 is seen as a mechanical sensor because it
moves in responseto pressure applied thereto," and that "[Frantz's] sensor
18 generates a force which is determined by the pressure in chambers [main
chamber] 2, [outlet passage] 8, [and pressure chamber] 30, and which force
controls operation offrrst valve member 11 [and] is seen as a mechanical
'signal."' Ans. 14. Appellant acknowledges that " [a] 'device that responds
to a physical stimulus (as heat, light, sound,pressure, magnetism, or a
particular motion) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for measurement or
operating a control)' may be a sensor," but argues that Frantz' s "head does
not generate a signaf' and that "movement ofthe head in responseto
pressure does not constitute a sensorthat generates a signal." App. Br. 12
(emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 5---6.
The Examiner proposestodefme "signaf' as "'anact, event, or the
like that causes or incites some action"' (Non-Final Act. 6), and Appellant
5
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
proposes to defme "signaf' as "a' detectable physical quantity or impulse (as
a voltage, current, or magnetic field strength) by which messages or
information can be transmitted"' (App. Br. 12). We note that each of these
proposed definitions comports with a dictionary definition of the term. See,
e.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/signal (last visited
October20, 2016). The propriety of this rejection is determined by whether
or not movement of Frantz' s piston 14 constitutes a signal. The Examiner
fmds that it does, while Appellant argues it does not. We think the
Examiner has the better position.
Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation,
as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account
whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Pursuant to that standard, the claim
language should be read in light of the Specification, as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Suiface, Inc., 603
F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the Specification explains that
The sensor40 may comprise a pressure sensor that measures a
pressure downstream of the inlet seat 18 and generates a signal
42 reflective of the pressure downstream of the inlet seat 18.
The sensor 40 may transmit the signal 42 to an indicator 44,
such as a pressure gauge or alarm system, to provide a visual or
audible indication of the operability of the drain valve 10.
Spec. ,-r 23 (emphasis added). We interpret this disclosure as establishing
that the recited signal can include a reaction due to or movement resulting
from pressure-a visual pressure gauge indication of pressure measured by a
pressure sensor. In other words, the signal can be movement of the needle
of pressure gauge 44 in response to the sensed pressure. Compare id. at
6
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
Figs. 1, 2, and 4 (showing the needle of pressure gauge 44 in various
positions). As the Examiner's proposed defmition of"signal" is consistent
with how the term is used in the Specification, and Appellant's proposal is
not, we adoptthe Examiner's definition of "signal." Accordingly, we find
that movement of Frantz' s piston 14 constitutes a signai and, therefore, we
affrrm the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as ofits dependent
claims 2 and 21, as being anticipated by Frantz.
Claims 9 and 10
The Examiner fmds that Frantz discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 9. Non-Final Act. 6-7. Appellant has not addressed this
rejection of claim 9, nor of its dependent claim 10. See App. Br. 11-14.
Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10 as being anticipated by
Frantz. Seellyattv. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(explaining that summary affrrmance without consideration of the
substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground
of rejection).
Claim 14
Independent claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1, but
additionally requires the valve body to include a second outlet seat and,
rather than a sensor, an actuator that compares a pressure downstream of the
inlet seat to a predetermined limit. App. Br., Claims Appendix, pp. 1-2.
Claim 14 depends directly from claim 9 and further requires that "said
7
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
actuator generates a control signal in response to the pressure between said
inlet seat and said second outlet seat." Id. at 2.
The Examiner fmds that Frantz discloses all of the elements of claim
14. Non-Final Act. 7. Appellant traverses, presenting arguments similar to
those presented above with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 12-13. For the
same reasons as presented above, we affrrm the rejection of claim 14 as
being anticipated by Frantz.
Claims 15-18
The Examiner fmds that Frantz discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 15. Non-Final Act. 7-8. Appellant has not addressed this
rejection of claim 15, nor ofits dependent claims 16-18. See App. Br. 11-
14. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 15-18 as being anticipated by
Frantz.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends directly from claim 15 and further requires
"generating a control signal based on the pressure in said valve body." App.
Br., Claims Appendix, p. 3. The Examiner fmds that Frantz discloses all of
the steps of claim 20. Non-Final Act. 8. Appellant traverses, presenting
arguments similar to those presented above with respectto claim 1. App.
Br. 13-14. Forthe same reasons as presented above, we affrrm the rejection
of claim 20 as being anticipated by Frantz.
8
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
Obviousness Based on Rasmussen and Frantz
Claims 1-3 and 5-8
The Examiner fmds that Rasmussen discloses the invention
substantially as claimed in independent claim 1, "with arguable exception to
a valve bodywhich defmes an inlet seat and a frrst outlet seat." Non-Final
Act. 9. The Examiner fmds that "Frantz teaches that it was known in the art
at the time of invention to form a functionally equivalent valve body(4, 25)
which comprises a similar inlet seat ( 50) and frrst outlet seat (23)
downstream of the inlet seat," and reasons that it would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan to similarly position Rasmussen's unlabeled valve in the
valve body "for the purpose of ... creating a more ready-to-use assembly."
Non-Final Act. 9-10. Appellant traverses, arguing that the Examiner failed
to "articulate how [Rasmussen] may be modified by the teachings in [Frantz]
to yield a working drain valve" because the Examiner has not identified how
"the second member taught by [Rasmussen] ... [would have] a frrst location
in sealing engagement with the inlet seat" and that Rasmussen's sensor "is
upstream of every seat (e.g., 26, 41) in the valve (10)." App. Br. 14--15; see
also Reply Br. 6-7. (Appellant also repeats arguments regarding Rasmussen
and Frantz individually, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth
above. App. Br. 15-16; see also Reply Br. 7.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner
proposes to explicitly make Rasmussen's unlabeled valve a part of the body
of drain valve 10; the Examiner has not proposed to modify Rasmussen's
unlabeled valve. Non-Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 15. As noted above, because
the unlabeled valve is part of the body of drain valve 10, the seat of the
9
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
unlabeled valve would be "an internal part" of and contained within the
"outer casing" of drain valve 10. The seat would also be upstream of sensor
42A. See RasmussenFigs. 4, 7.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of
claim 1, as well as ofits dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-8, as being
unpatentable over Rasmussen and Frantz.
Claims 15-2 0
The Examiner fmds independent claim 15 to be unpatentable over
Rasmussen and Frantz similarly as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Non-Final Act. 9-10. Appellant traverses, presenting arguments similar to
those presented with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 16-17. Forthe same
reasons as presented above, we affrrm the rejection of claim 15, as well as of
its dependent claims 16-20, as being unpatentable over Rasmussen and
Frantz.
Obviousness Based on Frantz and Rasmussen
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 21
The Examiner fmds that Frantz discloses the invention substantially as
claimed in independent claim 1, "with arguable exception to a sensor
downstream of said inlet seat, wherein said sensor generates a signal
reflective of pressure downstream of the inlet seat." Non-Final Act. 10. The
Examiner fmds that Rasmussen teaches such a sensor, and reasons that it
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to include Rasmussen's sensor
in Frantz' s valve body "for the purpose of generating a control signal that
purges a high condensate level from Frantz' [main] chamber (2)." Id. at IO-
10
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
11. Appellant traverses, presenting arguments similar to those presented
above with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 17-18. For the same reasons as
presented above, we affmn the rejection of claim 1, as well as ofits
dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, and 21, as being unpatentable over Frantz and
Rasmussen.
Claims 9-13
The Examiner fmds independent claim 9 unpatentable over Frantz and
Rasmussen. Non-Final Act. 10-11. Appellant has not addressed this
rejection of claim 9, nor ofits dependent claims 10-13. See App. Br. 17-19.
Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 9-13 as being unpatentable over
Frantz and Rasmussen.
Claim 14
The Examiner fmds independent claim 14 unpatentable over Frantz
and Rasmussen. Non-Final Act. 10-11. Appellant traverses, presenting
arguments similar to those presented above with respectto claim 1. App.
Br. 18. Forthe same reasons as presented above, we affmn the rejection of
claim 14 as being unpatentable over Frantz and Rasmussen.
Claims 15-19
The Examiner fmds independent claim 15 unpatentable over Frantz
and Rasmussen. Non-Final Act. 12. Appellant has not addressed this
rejection of claim 15, nor ofits dependent claims 16-19. See App. Br. 17-
19. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
11
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 15-19 as being unpatentable over
Frantz and Rasmussen.
Claim 20
The Examiner fmds claim 20 unpatentable over Frantz and
Rasmussen. Non-Final Act. 13. Appellant traverses, presenting arguments
similar to those presented above with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 18-19.
For the same reasons as presented above, we affrrm the rejection of claim 20
as being unpatentable over Frantz and Rasmussen.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Frantz, Hunt, and Rasmussen
Claims 9-13
The Examiner fmds independent claim 9 unpatentable over Frantz,
Hunt, and Rasmussen. Non-Final Act. 13-14. Appellant has not addressed
this rejection of claim 9, nor of its dependent claims 10-13. See App. Br.
19. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 9-13 as being unpatentable over
Frantz, Hunt, and Rasmussen.
Claim 14
The Examiner fmds that Frantz discloses the invention substantially as
defmed in claim 14, "but arguably lacks an actuator comparing a pressure
downstream of the inlet seat to a predetermined limit." Non-Final Act. 13.
The Examiner fmds that Hunt discloses such an actuator (indicator controller
50), and reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
include Hunt's actuator in Frantz' s valve body "for the purpose of
12
Appeal 2014-009710
Application 12/906,222
automatically moving the frrst element to drain the chamber according to a
pressure sensed in the chamber." Id. The Examiner also fmds that
"Rasmussen suggests that automatic control ofa valve member based on
sensed pressure is useful and well known in the drain valve art." Id. The
Examiner expounds that Hunt teaches the use of an actuator, and Frantz and
Rasmussen teach the location at which to place Hunt's actuator. Ans. 16.
Appellant traverses, arguing that "the actuator (50) taught by Hunt is
operatively connected upstream of the inlet seat (22) of the valve (10)."
App. Br. 19. (Appellant also repeats arguments regarding Frantz
individually, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. Id.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Although Hunt's
pressure tap 40 is positioned upstream from its valve seat 22, the Examiner
proposes to position a similar tap in Frantz's main chamber 2. Non-Final
Act. 13. When so positioned, the pressure tap would be downstream of
Frantz' s inlet port 3 and seat 50. See Frantz Fig. 4.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affrrm the rejection of
claim 14 as being unpatentable over Frantz, Hunt, and Rasmussen.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-21 is affrrmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37C.F.R.§1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
13