Ex Parte Pfeiffer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 2015

10858206 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2015)

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. 10/858,206 06/02/2004 John W. Pfeiffer 8385.011.US0000 4706 77407 7590 03/25/2015 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP 1875 Eye St NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006-5409 EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2015 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 JOHN W. PFEIFFER and ANTHONY E. BOROCH ____________________ Appeal 2013-002587 Application 10/858,206 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE John W. Pfeiffer and Anthony E. Boroch (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4 and 6–44. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Claim 5 is canceled. Appeal 2013-002587 Application 10/858,206 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a rotary valve for a pneumatic conveying system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A rotary valve for metering bulk fine materials comprising: a housing defining a cylindrical chamber having a material inlet, a material outlet directionally offset relative to said material inlet and a fluid inlet disposed in alignment with said material outlet, connectable with a source of fluid under pressure; a rotor disposed in said chamber coaxially therewith having a shaft supported on walls of said housing and a set of vanes disposed radially relative to the axis of said rotor, defining a plurality of pockets each disposable in alignment with said material outlet and said fluid inlet and communicable successively with said material inlet and both of said material outlet and fluid inlet when disposed in alignment with said material outlet and said fluid inlet to cause material to be received through said material inlet and discharged through said material outlet as said rotor is rotated, each successive set of vanes having a liner formed of a permeable material extending from a tip of one of said vanes, along and spaced from said one vane, spaced from said rotor and along and spaced from the other of said vanes to the tip thereof, defining a substantially V-shaped chamber; means connectable to a source of fluid under pressure communicable with the V-shaped chamber of each pocket when said pocket communicates with said material outlet, for injecting a burst of a fluidizing gas therein for dislodging material disposed therein; and a nozzle disposed in said fluid inlet functional to direct a stream of fluid under pressure along a line of travel substantially parallel to the axis of said rotor, through a pocket disposed in alignment with said material outlet thereby purging dislodged material in said pocket and injecting it through said aligned material outlet. Appeal 2013-002587 Application 10/858,206 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Brooks Vogt Vogt ‘307 Rosenstrom US 2,921,721 US 3,399,931 US 3,612,307 US 4,573,504 Jan. 19, 1960 Sept. 3, 1968 Oct. 12, 1971 Mar. 4, 1986 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–4, 6–11, 20–24, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogt and Vogt ‘307. II. Claims 12, 13, 25, 26, and 31–36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogt, Vogt ‘307, and Rosenstrom. III. Claims 14–19, 27–29, and 41–43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogt, Vogt ‘307, and Brooks. IV. Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogt, Vogt ‘307, Brooks, and Rosenstrom. V. Claims 37‒39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogt, Vogt ‘307, Rosenstrom, and Brooks. OPINION 2 Arguments Pertaining to Vogt and Vogt ‘307 Claims 1–4, 6–11, 20–24, and 30 Appellants argue claims 1–4, 6–11, 20–24, and 30 together. 3 See Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 2–4. We select independent claim 1 as the 2 We address the arguments in the order present by Appellants in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Appeal 2013-002587 Application 10/858,206 4 illustrative claim, and claims 2–4, 6–11, 20–24, and 30 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014). The Examiner finds that Vogt discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1 except for a liner that extends “between the tips of the vanes forming V-shaped chambers.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds that Vogt ‘307 “teaches another rotary meter valve 16 having a permeable liner 74 forming a V-shaped chamber 72 as shown in figure 7 with the liner extending from vane tip to vane tip.” Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to provide the valve of Vogt[] with a liner extending from valve [sic, vane] tip to valve [sic, vane] tip as, for example, taught by Vogt ‘307 in order to improve the removal of material from the entire vane and pocket.” Id. at 3. Appellants assert that “neither of the patents to Vogt discloses or teaches a valve housing having a material inlet, a material outlet directionally offset relative to such a material inlet, [and] a fluid inlet disposed in alignment with such a material outlet.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ assertion is not well taken, because it is based on an analysis of Vogt which is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. See Reply Br. 3 (which refers to Vogt’s housing outlet 10 as the material outlet, as opposed to Vogt’s discharge line 23 which the Examiner has identified as corresponding to the claimed material outlet). 3 We note that Appellants do not actually identify these claims as the claims argued; however, they are the claims rejected based on the combined teachings of Vogt and Vogt ‘307. Appeal 2013-002587 Application 10/858,206 5 As shown in Figure 2, Vogt discloses a discharge line 23, which corresponds to the claimed material outlet. 4 Thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Appellants further assert that neither of the patents to Vogt disclose: a nozzle disposed in such fluid inlet functional to direct a stream of fluid under pressure along a line of travel substantially parallel to the axis of the valve rotor, through a pocket disposed in alignment with such material outlet thereby purging dislodged material in such pocket and injecting it through such aligned material outlet. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that in Vogt the material outlet and fluid inlet are not aligned. See Reply Br. 3. As with Appellants’ argument discussed supra, this argument is also based on an analysis of Vogt that is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. For example, Appellants’ argument refers to Vogt’s Figure 6, which does not illustrate Vogt’s discharge line 23. Reply Br. 4. As discussed supra, the Examiner has correctly found that Vogt’s discharge line 23 corresponds to the claimed material outlet. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 1, and claims 2–4, 6–11, 20–24, and 30 that fall therewith. 4 We note that in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter section of the Appeal Brief, Appellants do not identify the structure corresponding to the claimed material outlet; however, the Specification describes reference numeral 80 shown in Fig. 2b as the “material outlet opening.” Spec. 7. We further note, that a comparison of Appellants’ Figures 1 and 2, with Vogt’s Figure 3 illustrates that the Examiner has correctly identified discharge line 23 as corresponding to the claimed material outlet, as in both Vogt and the instant invention, material exits the device via a material outlet that is “directionally offset relative to said material inlet” as required by claim 1. Appeal 2013-002587 Application 10/858,206 6 Arguments Pertaining to Brooks Claims 14–19, 27–29, 37–39, and 41–43 5 The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Brooks teaches “a permeable liner 46 spaced from the housing 24 that forms a portion of the cylindrical chamber that forms a chamber 48 that is displaced radially away from the rotor axis at 20 with 48 having a fluid pressure inlet at 52.” Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that “[t]he permeated linings of Brooks ‘721 in no manner are provided to cooperate with the permeated linings in the pockets of the vanes of a rotor as in the claimed valve to dislodge the comminuted material.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. Appellants’ argument is unconvincing as it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. None of claims 14–19, 27–29, 37–39, and 41–43 require permeable linings that “cooperate” with the liner as argued by Appellants. In addition, we note that we do not consider new arguments presented in the Reply Brief that are not responsive to an argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer without a showing of good cause why such arguments were not earlier presented. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2014). For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14–19, 27–29, and 41–43 based on the combined teachings of Vogt, Vogt ‘307, and Brooks, and claims 37–39 based on the combined teachings of Vogt, Vogt ‘307, Rosenstrom, and Brooks. 5 Appellants present arguments pertaining to Brooks without identifying the claims to which these arguments pertain. We assume that these arguments pertain to claims 14–19, 27–29, 27–29, and 41–43. Appeal 2013-002587 Application 10/858,206 7 Arguments Pertaining to Rosenstrom Claims 12, 13, 25, 26, 31‒36, and 44 Appellants assert that “[c]onsidering that it is the objective of both [Vogt] references to remove any air from the pockets of the rotor in order to compact the pulverant material therein, it would appear to be counterproductive to inject any such air into the inlet of either of the Vogt valves.” Appeal Br. 12. In response to this argument, that Examiner explains that: Vogt has a suction line 57, 68. However, as disclosed on column 5, lines 70-74 of Vogt[], the purpose of the suction is to draw material into the vane pockets. The purpose of the inlet liners of Rosenstrom is to encourage fluid flow into an outlet valve 21 and outlet conduit 7. Therefore, the two purposes are complimentary. Ans. 12. In the Reply Brief, Appellants merely repeat their argument and do not explain why Vogt’s disclosure of a suction line to draw material into the vane pockets is incompatible with the use of liners as taught by Rosenstrom. Reply Br. 2 We find the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of Vogt and Rosenstrom to be based on rational underpinnings. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12, 13, 25, 26, and 31‒36 based on the combined teachings of Vogt, Vogt ‘307, and Rosenstrom and, claim 44 based on the combined teachings of Vogt, Vogt ‘307, Brooks, and Rosenstrom. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–44 are AFFIMED. Appeal 2013-002587 Application 10/858,206 8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Ssc