Ex Parte Means

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13276824 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
13/276,824 10/19/2011 Stuart Means 4236-08301 8563
114378 7590 03/29/2017
TR ANF, International Tne
EXAMINER
Conley Rose, P.C. MA, KUN KAI
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STUART MEANS
Appeal 2014-007014
Application 13/276,824
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant Stuart Means appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 9-201 mailed October 10,
2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention relates generally to a heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) system that includes an electronic expansion value
(EEV). Spec. 4. Figure 6 is reproduced below.
1 Claim 8 was previously canceled. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2014-007014
Application 13/276,824
6/7
Figure 6 is a schematic diagram of an EEV in an unrestricted state of
operation. Spec. 114. The Specification explains: “The the [sic] motor 312
may further be operated to fully remove the removable seat 328 from both of
the bores 330, 332 so that the fluid and/or refrigerant need not pass through
the removable seat 328 during passage through the EEV 300.” Id. at 147.
2
Appeal 2014-007014
Application 13/276,824
Independent claim 1, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. An HVAC system, comprising:
an electronic expansion valve, comprising:
a motor;
an obturator connected to the motor, the obturator
being selectively movable in response to operation of the
motor; and
a removable seat selectively received within a
complementary portion of the electronic expansion valve,
the removable seat being selectively removable from the
complementary portion in response to operation of the
motor.
THE REJECTION
Before us for review is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al.
(US 4,506,518, iss. Mar. 26, 1985, hereafter “Yoshikawa”) in view of Reedy
et al. (US 5,002,089, iss. Mar. 26, 1991, hereafter “Reedy”).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the combination of Yoshikawa and Reedy
fails to teach “the removable seat being selectively removable from the
complementary portion in response to operation of the motor,” as recited in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 16.
Appeal Br. 10-11. Specifically, Appellant asserts that combining the seat of
Reedy with Yoshikawa would not allow for the seat to be “removable ... in
response to operation of the motor as claimed.” Id. at 11.
The Examiner finds that Yoshikawa discloses much of the claimed
invention but fails to disclose the disputed limitation quoted above. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Reedy teaches a removable seat, considered
3
Appeal 2014-007014
Application 13/276,824
to be Reedy’s flow metering piston 70, and that the “seat” is movable and
removable from a complementary portion. Id. at 3, 9-10 (citing Reedy,
Fig. 2; col. 12,11. 5—10). The Examiner’s proposed modification involves
the replacement of Yoshikawa’s bearing portion 26 with Reedy’s flow
metering piston 70. Id. at 9—10. The Examiner reasons that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have made the combination of Yoshikawa and Reedy
because “the modification of Yoshikawa by Reedy provides the advantage
of a removable seat (70) that can be readily interchanged by having different
sized flow metering ports replaced with one another to facilitate matching a
particular electrically controlled expansion valve to the requirement of a
particular HVAC system.” Final Act. 10.
We find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. While Reedy’s flow
metering piston is, as the Examiner found, removable from the housing and
is interchangeable with other flow metering pistons, this would require
disassembly of the valve, presumably by the HVAC technician. See Reedy,
col. 12,11. 8—14; Fig. 2. Notably absent from the Examiner’s articulation of
the rejection is an adequate explanation as to how the removable seat, in the
modified Yoshikawa device, would be “selectively removable ... in
response to operation of the motor.” See, e.g., Final Act. 10 (asserting that
modifying Yoshikawa would permit Reddy’s flow metering piston to be
removed in response to the motor’s operation, with the modification
providing the advantage of interchangeability, but not clearly indicating how
this would occur). In the Answer, the Examiner appears to assert that
disassembly of the valve (and presumably removal of the flow metering
piston) due to a hypothetical failure of the motor would be, when broadly
construed, “in response to the operation of the motor.” Ans. 9—10. The
4
Appeal 2014-007014
Application 13/276,824
Examiner applies an unreasonably broad interpretation when the claim is
read in light of the specification. We determine that the Examiner has not
shown that the proposed combination yields a removable seat selectively
removable “in response to operation of the motor,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 11 and 16.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1,11, and 16. We similarly do not sustain the rejection of claims 2—
6, 8—10, 12—15, and 17—20, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to rejection claims 1—7 and 9—20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5