Ex Parte Murray

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2017

13381488 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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. 13/381,488 02/02/2012 Jonathan David Murray 65857-0203 6450 101911 7590 04/04/2017 EATON CORPORATION c/o FISHMAN STEWART PLLC 39533 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 140 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER FRISTOE JR, JOHN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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): MS tewart @ fishstewip. com J Guenther @ fishstewip. com docketing @ fishstewip. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN DAVID MURRAY Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 Technology Center 3700 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4—7, and 9—18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Eaton Corporation.” (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant’s invention “relates to a fluid valve assembly for use in an aircraft fluid transport system having limited structural clearance where the associated ducting must be removed to service the check valve.” (Spec. 1.) Illustrative Claim 1. A fluid ducting configuration comprising: a fluid duct installed in an aircraft structure and defining a first distance (HI) between said fluid duct and said aircraft structure; a check valve configured to allow removal of said fluid duct and said check valve by displacing said fluid duct a second distance (H2) relative to said check valve; a first duct flange connected to said fluid duct, and a check valve flange extending from said check valve, where said check valve flange is clamped at an interface between said first duct flange and a second duct flange; and a mounting extension flange extending transverse to the check valve flange such that the check valve is located upstream of the interface, wherein said first distance (HI) is greater than said second distance (H2). Rejections I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4—7, 9, 12, 13, and 16—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art (Spec. 4—5, Fig. 1) and Aitchison (US 2005/0116114 Al, published June 2, 2005). (Final Action 2.) II. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and the SAE Publication (SAE International, AS 1895 Standards Publication). (Final Action 7.) 2 Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 III. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and Smith (US 3,484,112, issued May 21, 1968). (Final Action 8.) ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4, and 5 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9—18) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 1 recites “[a] fluid ducting configuration,” independent claim 4 recites “[a]n aircraft fluid ducting configuration,” and independent claim 5 recites “[a] fluid check valve assembly.” (Id.) Independent Claim 1 Independent claim 1 recites “a check valve,” “a fluid duct,” “a first duct flange,” “a second duct flange,” and “a check valve flange” that is “clamped at an interface between [the] first duct flange and [the] second duct flange.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 1 also recites “a first distance (HI)” that is the distance between the fluid duct and an aircraft structure, and “a second distance (H2)” that is the distance the fluid duct must be displaced to allow removal of the check valve. (Id.) The Examiner finds that the prior art aircraft assembly disclosed in the Appellant’s Figure 1 comprises a check valve 2, a check valve flange 13, a fluid duct 11, a first duct flange 20, and a second duct flange 25. (See Final Action 2—3.) “The fluid duct 11 is attached to [the] duct flange 20 which is held against [the] check valve flange 13.” (Spec. 4.) Distance (HI) is the distance from an aircraft structure to the fluid duct 11 and distance (H2) is the distance the duct flange 20 must be displaced upward from the interface 3 Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 to allow for removal of the check valve 2. (See id.) “The distance H2 exceeds the distance HI.” (Id.) Independent claim 1 also recites “a mounting extension flange extending transverse to the check valve flange such that the check valve is located upstream of the interface, wherein said first distance (HI) is greater than said second distance (H2).” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Aitchison teaches a mounting extension flange located upstream of the interface between duct flanges 70a and 70b. (See Final Action 3.) Aitchison discloses a valve 64d having a support ring 602 that “includes two steps 660 and 662” that are “different in diameters in order to ensure correct orientation of the valve 64d.” (Aitchison 149; see also id., Fig. 9d.) The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to provide the check valve 2 in the prior art aircraft assembly with “the mounting flange of Aitchison in order to use a mounting flange that can prevent incorrect orientation of the valve.” (Final Action 3.) The Examiner maintains that, in this modified version of the prior art aircraft assembly, Aitchison’s mounting flange “reduces the distance” that the supply conduit “needs to be displaced vertically in order to allow valve replacement.” (Answer 3—4.) The Appellant argues that Aitchison “does not teach the use of a check valve as recited by the present claim.” (Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4—6.) We are not persuaded by this argument because it is not aligned with the Examiner’ rejection. Aitchison is not relied upon to teach a check valve and Aitchison is not being modified to include a check valve. The Examiner’s rejection entails providing the check valve 2 in the prior art aircraft assembly with Aitchison’s mounting flange. 4 Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 The Appellant also argues that the prior art does not show or suggest the “removal of the fluid duct by displacing the fluid duct a second distance (H2) smaller than the distance (HI).” (Appeal Br. 12.) We are persuaded by this argument because, as indicated above, the Examiner’s articulated reason for the proposed modification is “to prevent incorrect orientation of the valve.” (Final Action 3.) We agree with the Examiner’s implication that, when the prior art aircraft assembly is modified in the proposed manner, the distance H2 would be reduced by a dimension comparable to the step heights of Aitchison’s support ring 602. (See Answer 3—4, especially the Examiner’s annotated drawing.) But, in view of the tower stop 12 in the prior art check valve 2, the reduced distance H2 would still significantly exceed the distance HI. (See Spec., Fig. 2.) The Examiner does not adequately explain why a modification for the purpose of “correct orientation” would steer one of ordinary skill in the art toward the much larger reduction necessary for distance H2 to no longer exceed distance HI.2 Accordingly, the Examiner does not sufficiently establish that the proposed modification of the prior art aircraft assembly would yield the fluid ducting configuration recited in independent claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Aitchison (Rejection 1). 2 Although the Examiner maintains that the claimed dimensional relationship could be achieved by “optimizing variables such as dimension and scale” (Answer 4), Aitchison implicates that “ensuring] correct orientation” can be accomplished with relatively small steps and/or shoulders (Aitchison 149, see also Fig. 9d). 5 Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 Independent Claim 4 Independent claim 4, like independent claim 1, recites “a check valve,” “a check valve flange,” “a fluid duct,” “first and second duct flanges,” “a first distance (HI),” and “a second distance (H2).” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 4 also specifies that “said first distance (HI) [is] greater than said second distance (H2).” (Id. ) The Appellant argues independent claim 4 in conjunction with independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 4—8.) As discussed above, we are persuaded by the Appellant’s position that the Examiner does not sufficiently establish that the proposed modification of the prior art aircraft assembly would yield an arrangement in which distance HI is greater than distance H2. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 4 as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Aitchison (Rejection I). Independent Claim 5 Independent claim 5, like independent claims 1 and 4, recites “a check valve,” “a fluid duct,” and “first and second duct flanges.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) However, independent claim 5 does not recite distances HI and H2, but instead recites that “said check valve is located upstream of said check valve flange for minimizing a distance that said first duct flange must be displaced for clearance with said check valve.” (Id.) As noted by the Examiner, claim 5 “make[s] no mention of ‘distance or clearance between the fluid duct and the aircraft structure.’” (Answer 5.) The Appellant argues independent claim 5 in conjunction with independent claims 1 and 4. (See Appeal Br. 4—8.) Here, however, the 6 Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 Examiner need not establish that the proposed modification would result in distance H2 being less than HI. The Examiner need only establish that the proposed modification would minimize (e.g., reduce) distance H2 in the prior art aircraft assembly. As discussed above, in the proposed combination of the prior art, the distance H2 shown in the Appellant’s Figure 1 would be reduced by dimensions corresponding to those of Aitchison’s support ring 602. (See Aitchison 149, Fig. 9d.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 5 as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Aitchison (Rejection I). Dependent Claims 6, 11, and 15 Claims 6,11, and 15 each depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 53 and further recite that the check valve includes “a stop tower.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that the prior art aircraft assembly includes a stop tower 12a (see Final Action 6), and thus the modified version of this aircraft assembly would likewise include a stop tower. The Appellant argues that “a tower stop” would “significantly increase the clearance depth for removal of the valve” and Aitchison “is not compatible with the use of the recited tower stop while still maintaining the recited ‘minimizing a distance’ of travel of the first duct flange.” (Appeal Br. 13, 15—16.) We are not persuaded by this argument because claims 6, 11, and 15 do not recite a relationship between the minimizing distance and 3 As claims 6, 11, and 15 depend from independent claim 5, which “make[s] no mention of ‘distance or clearance between the fluid duct and the aircraft structure’” (Answer 5), the Appellant’s arguments that Aitchison “fails to discuss clearances between the fluid duct and the aircraft structure” (Appeal Br. 13, 15) are not persuasive. 7 Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 the tower stop’s dimensions. Insofar as the Appellant is asserting that any displacement reduction provided by Aitchison’s support ring 602 is significantly less than the height of the prior art tower stop 12a, we agree. Nonetheless, the distance H2 shown in the Appellant’s Figure 1 would be reduced somewhat, and the check valve 2 in this prior art aircraft assembly would comprise stop tower 12a. (See Aitchison 149, Fig. 9d.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Aitchison (Rejection I); we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and the SAE Publication (Rejection II); and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and Smith (Rejection III). Dependent Claims 7, 9, 10, 12—14, and 18 Claims 7, 9, 10, 12—14, and 18 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 5 (see Appeal Br., Claims App), and are not argued separately (see id., 13—16). They fall, therefore, with independent claim 5. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 7, 12, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Aitchison (Rejection I); we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and the SAE Publication (Rejection II); and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and Smith (Rejection III). 8 Appeal 2015-002951 Application 13/381,488 Dependent Claims 16 and 17 Claims 16 and 17 depend from independent claims 1 and 4, respectively. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner’s findings with respect to these dependent claims (see Final Action 7) do not compensate for the above discussed deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 4. Dependent claims 16 and 17 stand, therefore, with independent claims 1 and 4. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over the Prior Art Aircraft Assembly and Aitchison (Rejection I). DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 16, and 17. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claim 5—7, 9—15, and 18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9