Ex Parte Phillips et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

14554505 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/554,505 11/26/2014 Grant Wesley Phillips
86378 7590 04/02/2019
Pearne & Gordon LLP
1801 East 9th Street
Suite 1200
Cleveland, OH 44114-3108
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.
AMT-51012US1 3595
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, PATRICK C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRANT WESLEY PHILLIPS and DEREK M. WILLIAMS
Appeal2018-006716 1
Application 14/554,505 2
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1--4 and 6-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Jan. 26,
2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 15, 2018), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 18, 2018), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Sept. 21, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Applied Medical
Technology, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006716
Application 14/554,505
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he present disclosure relates to a
breakaway coupling for use with medical fluids." Spec. ,r 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A tube coupling comprising:
a female adapter attached to a first end of a source tube
and the source tube connected to a supply source at a second end
of the source tube, the female adapter comprising a one-way
valve situated to prevent a flow from a source through the first
end of the source tube when the female adapter is uncoupled; and
a male adapter attached to a first end of a destination tube,
the destination tube connected to a destination at a second end of
the destination tube, the male adapter comprising a hollow post
that extends away from the destination tube and a one-way valve
situated behind the post to prevent backflow of fluid through the
first end of the destination tube from the destination when the
male adapter is uncoupled,
wherein when the male and female adapters are coupled to
each other, an end of the hollow post of the male adapter
penetrates the one-way valve of the female adapter causing the
one-way valve of the female adapter to open,
a flow from the source passes through the hollow post and
has a pressure that forces open the one-way valve of the male
adapter, thereby facilitating an uninterrupted flow from the
source through the source tube and the destination tube to the
destination,
the end of the hollow post that penetrates the one-way
valve of the female adapter is distal to the one-way valve situated
behind the post, and comprises an opening that is uncovered
when the male adapter and the female adapter are both coupled
and uncoupled, and
2
Appeal 2018-006716
Application 14/554,505
an inner diameter of the female adapter is constant through
a portion comprising the one-way valve therein, and an inner
diameter of the male adapter is constant through a portion
comprising the one-way valve therein.
Appeal Br. 15.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming
ineligible subject matter.
2. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
3 . The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, and 8 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 02 (a) (1) as
anticipated by Barlow. 3
4. The Examiner rejects claims 2--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Barlow.
5. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Barlow in view of Fangrow 723 4 and Adams. 5
6. The Examiner rejects claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Barlow in view of Fangrow 216. 6
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that claim 7 is directed to ineligible subject matter
because it encompasses a human organism. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
determines that "[ a Jpparatus claim 7 positively recites a patient as a
destination, which is seen to be a human organism, and is therefore
3 Barlow, US 3,278,205, iss. Oct. 11, 1966.
4 Fangrow, Jr., US 2010/0249723 Al, pub. Sept. 30, 2010.
5 Adams et al., US 7,537,024 B2, iss. May 26, 2009.
6 Fangrow, Jr., US 7,892,216 B2, iss. Feb. 22, 2011.
3
Appeal 2018-006716
Application 14/554,505
unpatentable." Id. Appellants argue that the claim is directed to the
coupling and not the destination such that the claim never seeks to protect
the patient. Appeal Br. 6. We agree with Appellants. We determine that the
Examiner's interpretation of the claim is incorrect. Claim 1 is directed to a
"tube coupling," and although claim 1 recites elements related to a supply
and a destination, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
scope of the claim does not include the supply or the destination as part of
the "tube coupling." Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that these elements are simply describing the intended use for the
coupling, i.e. that the coupling is intended to be connected to a supply and a
destination to provide fluid flow therebetween. Under this interpretation of
claim 1, we find that claim 7 only recites that "the destination is a patient" as
an intended use for the claimed coupling and does not positively recite a
patient as part of the structure claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.
Rejection 2
The Examiner determines that claim 7 is indefinite because "[i]t is
unclear what the patentable scope of a 'patient' is." Final Act. 4. We agree
with Appellants that the term "patient" is "ubiquitous and common" and
"one of ordinary skill [in the art] would have no difficulty in identifying
what or who is a patient." Appeal Br. 6. For this reason, we do not sustain
this rejection.
Rejection 3
We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 by Appellants'
argument that the Examiner has not established that Barlow discloses
constant inner diameters, as required by claim 1. See Reply Br. 3--4. In
4
Appeal 2018-006716
Application 14/554,505
rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Barlow discloses "an inner
diameter of the female adapter is constant through a portion comprising the
one-way valve therein (constant at 15, 16, or constant at 23), and an inner
diameter of the male adapter is constant through a portion comprising the
one-way valve therein (at 30)." Final Act. 5 (citing Barlow Fig. 4). The
Examiner does not otherwise provide support for the finding that Barlow
discloses portions of constant inner diameter. See, e.g., Ans. 8. However,
Barlow does not expressly disclose what the diameter of any portion of the
device is or what the relative diameters are, and we cannot conclude from
the figures alone that Barlow discloses a constant diameter in any portion of
the coupling. For that reason, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 1 as anticipated by Barlow. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or the rejection of dependent claims 7 and 8 as
anticipated.
Re} ections 4 and 5
In rejecting claims 2--4 and 6 as obvious, the Examiner does not rely
on Barlow, Fangrow 723, or Adams in a manner that cures the deficiency in
the rejection of claim 1, as discussed above. Thus, for the reasons discussed,
we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2--4 and 6 as obvious.
Rejection 6
With respect to the rejection of claim 9, the Examiner finds that
Barlow teaches a tube coupling as claimed except that Barlow does not
disclose the male adapter including a locking ring and the female adapter
including a retention ring as required by the claim. Final Act. 8-9 ( citing
Barlow Figs. 1-5). The Examiner finds that Fangrow 216 teaches a
coupling between a female adapter (cap 64) and a male adapter (base 60).
5
Appeal 2018-006716
Application 14/554,505
Id. at 9 (citing Fangrow 216 Fig. 8). The Examiner finds that the cap 64
includes a retention ring and the base 60 includes a locking ring "such that
the locking ring and retention ring mate when coupled." Id. The Examiner
concludes:
Id.
Therefore it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, to
replace the coupling means of Barlow with "wherein the male
adapter further comprises a locking ring and the female adapter
further comprises a retention ring, and wherein the retention ring
is a recess on an inner surface of the lumen of the female adapter
such that, when coupled, the locking ring mates within the
retention ring", as taught by Fangrow, to provide a simpler
coupling means that requires less steps/force to utilize (i.e.
automatically mates when axially engaged).
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner
must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or
suggested by the combination of prior art references or would have been
obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Examiner can satisfy this
burden by showing "some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). Here, we agree with Appellants
that the conclusion of obviousness is not adequately supported. Specifically,
we determine that the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Barlow and Fangrow
216 in order to provide a simpler coupling means is not supported by the
record before us.
Barlow is directed "to a quick acting coupling to connect two conduits
together." Barlow col. 1, 11. 9--10. Barlow discloses that "its principle utility
6
Appeal 2018-006716
Application 14/554,505
is found in applications where speed and reliability of latching one [conduit]
onto the other are paramount requirements" such as in the field of
"[a]gricultural spray equipment aircraft." Id. at col. 1, 11. 12-16. Barlow
further discloses that coupling with the device must not be time consuming
and must also be reliable so as to "not slop poisons on the ground or on the
aircraft." Id. at col. 1, 11. 20-27. Fangrow 216 is directed to "an infusion set
comprising a base member, an introducer cap, and an infusion cap."
Fangrow 216 col. 1, 11. 49-51. Fangrow 216 discloses a device made from
resilient materials that may flex to allow for the cap to releasably engage the
base member. See Fangrow 216 col. 5, 11. 16-24; col. 7, 11. 35--43.
We note that the Examiner does not precisely indicate how Barlow's
device would be modified in light of Fangrow 216 to produce the claimed
coupling. Rather, the Examiner finds that Fangrow 216 teaches a coupling
with locking and retention ring and indicates that modifying Barlow in light
of this teaching would provide "a simpler coupling means that requires less
steps/force to utilize." Final Act. 9. Further, the Examiner indicates it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
references "despite differences in materials and the devices' field of use."
Ans. 9. However, we determine that the Examiner does not adequately
support the conclusion of obviousness. In particular, we fail to see, without
further explanation, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized Fangrow 216 's connection as beneficially "simpler" than
Barlow's coupling, which is specifically designed for speed and reliability
and for use in industrial applications.
7
Appeal 2018-006716
Application 14/554,505
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 or the
rejection of dependent claims 10 and 11.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1--4 and 6-11.
REVERSED
8