Ex Parte Levine

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

13574797 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/574,797 07/24/2012
60956 7590 06/21/2018
Professional Patent Solutions
P.O. BOX654
HERZELIYA PITUACH, 46105
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Noam Levine
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.
NML-PU-002-USl 9229
EXAMINER
SOLAK, TIMOTHY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 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):
office@propats.com
vsherman@propats.com
utalmi@propats.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NOAM LEVINE
Appeal2017-008094
Application 13/574,797
Technology Center 3700
Before: BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-008094
Application 13/574,797
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-3, 6-8, 15, and 18-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a pump-based fluid flow meter. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fluid flow meter for metering fluid, said
meter comprising:
a fluid reservoir having an outlet and an inlet
adapted to connect to a fluid source, which fluid
reservoir has at least one flexible component adapted
to stretch or contract to increase or decrease a volume
of the reservoir, in response to an amount of fluid
within said reservoir, such that different states of said
flexible component are characterized by different
volumes of said reservoir;
a fluid pump connected to said outlet and
adapted to displace metered amounts of fluid, from
the reservoir, by pumping strokes, through said
outlet, while said inlet remains connected to the fluid
source;
a sensor functionally associated with said
fluid reservoir and including, (1) a physical sensor
adapted to sense a parameter of fluid within said
reservoir, and (2) first electronic circuitry adapted to
generate a signal when the sensed parameter indicates
a pumping condition relating to the fluid within the
fluid reservoir has been met; and
a controller, comprising:
( 1) communication circuitry
communicatively coupled to said sensor and said
pump; and
(2) control circuitry configured to
trigger a pre-defined cycle of one or more strokes of
2
Appeal2017-008094
Application 13/574,797
Sahlin
Hale
said pump in response to the signal from said sensor,
wherein the pre-defined cycle of strokes displaces a
known volume of fluid;
a data storage to store a count of cycles of
said pump triggered by said controller;
processing circuitry configured to calculate
a flow into said reservoir, through said inlet, from the
fluid source, based on the stored count of cycles of
said pump; and
second electronic circuitry adapted to
generate an electronic signal indicating the calculated
flow.
REFERENCES
Minges
Mooney
Grumstrup
Williams
us 5,947,692
us 6,151,907
US 6,206,968 B 1
US 6,478,189 Bl
US 2003/0233203 Al
US 2008/0262701 Al
Sept. 7, 1999
Nov. 28, 2000
Mar. 27, 2001
Nov. 12, 2002
Dec. 18, 2003
Oct. 23, 2008
REJECTIONS
Claims 26 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Mooney.
Claims 1 and 7-8, 18-20, 23 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Mooney and Hale.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mooney, Hale, and Williams.
Claims 3, 15 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mooney, Hale, and Sahlin.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mooney, Hale, and Minges.
3
Appeal2017-008094
Application 13/574,797
Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mooney, Hale, and Grumstrup.
Claims 27 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mooney, Hale, and Minges, and Sahlin.
Claims 28 and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mooney and Sahlin.
Claim 30 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mooney and Williams.
Claim 29 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mooney, Hale, Minges, and Williams.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites:
a sensor functionally associated with said fluid reservoir and
including, ( 1) a physical sensor adapted to sense a parameter of
fluid within said reservoir, and (2) first electronic circuitry
adapted to generate a signal when the sensed parameter indicates
a pumping condition relating to the fluid within the fluid
reservoir has been met; and
a controller, compnsmg: (1) communication circuitry
communicatively coupled to said sensor and said pump; and (2)
control circuitry configured to trigger a pre-defined cycle of one
or more strokes of said pump in response to the signal from said
sensor, wherein the pre-defined cycle of strokes displaces a
known volume of fluid.
App. Br. 33 (Claims App.). Independent claims 25 and 26 contain similar
limitations. Id. at 35-37.
All of the pending rejections rely on the Examiner's finding that
Mooney teaches the sensor and controller limitations in independent claims
1, 25, and 26. Final Act. 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19. In particular, the
4
Appeal2017-008094
Application 13/574,797
Examiner finds that that Mooney's low-flow sensor 9 corresponds to the
claimed physical sensor adapted to sense a parameter of fluid within said
reservoir, the parameter being fluid flow from the reservoir. Id. at 3; see
Mooney Figs. 1, 2. The Examiner further finds that a portion of controller
13 corresponds to the electronic circuitry adapted to generate a signal when
the sensed parameter indicates a pumping condition relating to the fluid
within the fluid reservoir is met, the signal being the absence of a low-flow
signal. Id. (citing Mooney 7:16-20). The Examiner also finds that
controller 13 corresponds to the claimed control circuitry configured to
trigger a pre-defined cycle of one or more strokes of the pump in response to
the signal from said sensor, the pump being Mooney's injector unit 10. Id.
The Examiner explains this last finding as follows:
Controller 13 is controlling pump 10 with input from sensor 9
( see Figure 1 ). Mooney disclose: if "any sensor detects an
abnormal condition, the event is recorded by the controller which
will take appropriate action. This action may include disabling
of the dispensing system" (Column 7, lines 16-19). In other
words, if sensor 9 detects low flow ("a pumping condition
relating to the fluid in the reservoir") controller 13 will stop or
prohibit operation of the dispensing system. Pump 10 will not
operate without a signal from sensor 9. When controller 13
receives the signal from sensor 9 it allows pump 10 to operate
i.e. "trigger a pre-define cycle of one or more strokes."
Ans. 25.
Appellant disputes that "some sort of signal from sensor 9 is required
in order for Controller 13 to operate pump 10." App. Br. 14. Appellant
asserts that "[t]here is absolutely no basis for this in the Mooney reference,"
and such operation would be "illogical, as pump 10 must be active in order
for Sensor 9 to sense anything to begin with." Id.
5
Appeal2017-008094
Application 13/574,797
The Examiner's finding that Mooney teaches the sensor and controller
limitations of independent claims 1, 25, and 26 is based on the finding that
controller 13 must receive a "not low flow" signal from sensor 9 for
Mooney's pump 10 to operate. We agree with Appellant, however, that
Mooney's system does not work this way.
Mooney describes a system that can deliver either: ( 1) unmarked
diesel grade oil or (2) diesel oil into which a chemical marker fluid has been
injected (the marked fluid may be taxed at a lower rate and the marker
ensures that it is used only for certain purposes). Mooney 1:15-36, 3:47-50,
Figs. 1, 2. Mooney's system thus delivers not only the oil itself, but also the
marker fluid that is added to some of the oil-specifically, the oil that flows
through a "marked oil delivery pipe." Id., 4:44--50, Figs. 1, 2. Sensor 9 and
pump 10 are part of the marker fluid system. Id., Fig. 1.
In support of the Examiner's contention that input from sensor 9 is
required for pump 10 to operate, the Examiner quotes Mooney's teaching
that "[i]f any of the sensors detects an abnormal condition, the event is
recorded by the controller which will take appropriate action. This action
may include disabling of the dispensing system." Mooney 7: 16-19, quoted
at Ans. 33. The Examiner infers that "dispensing system" refers to
Mooney's marker system, and in particular pump 10. Ans. 25. However,
we agree with Appellant that the "dispensing system" is actually the system
that delivers oil, not the marker system. The above quote from Mooney,
read in context, makes this clear:
The marker low flow sensor 9 is used to ensure that oil is
not accidently or deliberately dispensed through the marked oil
delivery pipe 6 without the addition of marker. If any of the
sensors detects an abnormal condition, the event is recorded by
6
Appeal2017-008094
Application 13/574,797
the controller which will take appropriate action. This action
may include disabling of the dispensing system."
Mooney 7: 13-19 (emphasis added). In other words, the "dispensing
system" is the system that is designed to dispense oil. Sensor 9 and
controller 13 ensure that unmarked oil is not dispensed through the marked-
oil delivery pipe by stopping the dispensing of oil if it detects insufficient
flow of marker fluid. Thus, sensor 9 reacts to insufficient marker-fluid flow
through pump 10; it does not enable marker-fluid flow through pump 10.
Because all of the Examiner's rejections are based on the incorrect
premise that Mooney teaches the sensor and controller limitations of
independent claims 1, 25, and 26, and none of the other references relied
upon cure this deficiency, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-3, 6-8, 15, and 18-34.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 6-8,
15, and 18-34 are reversed.
REVERSED
7