Ex Parte SavlaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201711956564 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/956,564 12/14/2007 LALIT SAVLA 115305-001UTL 7719 92111 7590 William C. Boling Esq 5656 Hamill Avenue San Diego, CA 92120 03/29/2017 EXAMINER CHAUDRY, ATIF H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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 LALIT SAVLA Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 Technology Center 3700 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Lalit Savla (“Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 8, and 23—272 in this application. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Appellant as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 6, 7, and 9—12 {see Ans. 8), so there is no rejection of these claims for us to review. Claims 13— 22 are canceled. See Amendment (filed July 22, 2013), 5. Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 23 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and it recites: 1. A leak detection and prevention system for coupling to a valve that is manually operable by an attached handle, the system comprising: a gear motor linkage assembly including a motor and gear box; a push lever initially in a home position and coupled to a shaft of the motor; a motor controller/driver module configured to receive a signal indicating that a leak has been detected, upon receiving such signal to control the motor to drive the push lever so that the push lever non-captively engages the handle of the valve and pushes the handle to a closed position, and thereafter to control the motor to return the push lever, disengaging it from the valve handle, to the home position; and at least one leak detection sensor configured to activate a transmitter that transmits the signal indicating the presence of a leak upon encountering appropriate fluid. Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1—3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin (US 7,424,896 Bl, iss. Sept. 16, 2008) and Purvis (US 6,186,162 Bl, iss. Feb. 13, 2001). Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Staffiere (US 8,256,742 B2, iss. Sept. 4, 2012). 2 Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 Claims 8 and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Okuyama (US 2004/0242091 Al, pub. Dec. 2, 2004). Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Dwyer (US 5,967,171, iss. Oct. 19, 1999). Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Chin (US 5,539,383, iss. July 23, 1996). ANALYSIS A. Obviousness based on Martin and Purvis In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Martin’s Figure 1 illustrates a leak detection and prevention system including a valve (ball valve 13) manually operable by an attached handle (arm 14). Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds Martin’s system includes the claimed push lever (leg 46 of spring 45) that, when a leak is detected, moves from an initial home position to non-captively engage and push handle 14 to a closed position of valve 13. Id. The Examiner determines Martin fails to disclose an electronically controlled motor to drive push lever 46, and (as recited in claim 1) “thereafter to control the motor to return the push lever [46], disengaging it from the valve handle [14], to the home position.” Id. The Examiner finds Purvis discloses a leak detection and prevention system including an electronically controlled motor (motor 39) and gear box (gear reducer 44). Id. The Examiner finds Purvis’s motor 39 is coupled to “a push mechanism” (reducer output shaft 36) such that, when a leak is detected, motor 39 operates “to drive rotate the push mechanism to close” a valve. Id. 3 Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to provide Martin with an electronic motor control, such as disclosed in Purvis, “to enable automatic & electronic control and remote signal transmission.” Id. at 3^4. The Examiner finds, however, that the combination of Martin and Purvis “fails to disclose controlling the motor to return the push lever, disengaging it from the valve handle, to the home position,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 4. The Examiner nonetheless determines: [I]t would have been [obvious]... to have control [led] the motor to return the push lever to the initial (home) position when the leak is fixed to return to normal operation mode of the system. The device of Martin [] as modified in initial (home) position is disengaged from the valve handle. Id. at 4 (emphasis added), 11—12. Appellant points out that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Martin would require eliminating Martin’s entire apparatus for detecting leaks and moving handle 14 to close valve 13, except for leg 46 of spring 45. Appeal Br. 10-12. Appellant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not retain one small part, such as the [leg] 46 of spring 45, unless it offered some particular advantage,” and “common sense requires that a specific rationale is needed for retaining [leg] 46 of spring 45 in the face of a need to dispose of essentially everything else contributed by Martin.” Id. at 13. According to Appellant, “the [E]xaminer entirely fails to convey a reason to retain [leg] 46.” Id. We are persuaded that the Examiner’s factual findings in support of the obviousness of modifying Martin to be electronically controlled, while still retaining leg 46 of spring 45 as a mechanical linkage between an electronically controlled motor and handle 14, are not adequately supported 4 Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 in the record presently before us. See Final Act. 3—4, 11—14. As disclosed in Martin, leg 46 is an integral component of torsion spring 45. See Martin, Fig. 3, 5:37-41 (torsion spring 45 includes a “free end extending outward . . . and terminating in a 90° bend which, in turn, forms leg or impact surface 46”). Referring to Figure 3 of Martin, when Martin’s apparatus detects a water leak, a downward force applied to connector means 50 rotates latch lever 47 around pivot 47a, thereby causing notch 48 to release leg 46 so that stored tension in spring 45 is released, rotating leg 46 to push handle 14 (Fig. 1) to a closed position. Id. at 5:41—48, 6:1— 18. The Examiner’s proposed modification would replace Martin’s spring 45 with an electric motor to provide the motive force for valve closure, and yet retain the spring’s leg 46 for interaction with valve handle 14. See Final Act. 13 (Purvis’s electrical system “would also replace mechanical details of the actuator like the spring and trigger”). The Examiner proffers no rational basis for that proposed modification of Martin. We accept, without deciding, that it may have been obvious, in light of Purvis, to modify Martin to include an electronic motor control as proposed by the Examiner.3 See Final Act. 3^4. Nonetheless, the Examiner’s additional determination that it would have been obvious, when doing so, to retain Martin’s spring leg 46 while eliminating spring 45, is not supported by any rational underpinning. We appreciate Martin’s spring leg 46 interacts with valve handle 14 to close valve 13 during Martin’s disclosed, non-electronic, operation. See Ans. 9. However, a proper 3 We acknowledge Appellants’ argument that Martin teaches away from an electronic motor control. See Appeal Br. 17—19. We need not reach that issue, in light of the basis for reversal set forth in the present decision. 5 Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 obviousness rejection must set forth an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). The only basis we can find in the record presently before for retaining Martin’s spring leg 46 while eliminating spring 45 is an improper hindsight reasoning to maintain, as recited in claim 1, a push lever (i.e., leg 46) that “non-captively engages” valve handle 14 to push it to a closed position. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (improper to use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art). We, therefore, determine that the Examiner errs by failing to set forth articulated reasoning, supported by a preponderance of evidence in the present record, for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have retained spring leg 46 when eliminating spring 45 to effectuate electronic control of Martin’s valve 13. Additionally, claim 1 recites that, “upon receiving” a leak detection signal, the motor controller is configured to control the motor to (a) drive the push lever to non-captively engage and push the valve handle to a closed position, and (b) “thereafter” (that is, after step (a)) disengage the push lever from the handle and return it to its home position. Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.). Appellant argues, under a broadest reasonable construction in light of the present Specification, claim 1 thereby requires the motor controller to be configured to perform step (b) as a consequence of detecting the leak, automatically without user intervention. Id. at 21—25. We agree. The Specification describes the motor controller operating to return the push lever to its home position without user intervention. Spec. H 9, 41, 43. The Specification indicates this automatic return operation is advantageous 6 Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 because it moves the push lever to be “out of the way of’ the valve handle, so that the valve handle “can be operated manually in its normal fashion,” such that the leak detection and protection is “transparent to a user.” Id. 43, 46, 81, 92. The required manual operation of the valve handle to open the valve is further advantageous over electronic control, according to the Specification, because it avoids the possibility of the valve being opened inadvertently prior to the detected leak being fixed. Id. 145. Based on these various disclosures, we determine a broadest reasonable construction of claim 1 is that the claim requires the motor controller to be configured to control the motor to return the push lever to the home position as a consequence of detecting the leak, automatically, without user intervention. When addressing the disengaging return step (b) of claim 1, the Examiner determines it is not disclosed in either Martin or Purvis, but it would nonetheless have been obvious in order “to return to [a] normal operation mode of the system.” Final Act. 4; Ans. 10. In particular, the Examiner finds Purvis discloses “an electrically controlled push lever driver which is capable of rotating the push lever in both directions (as indicated by switches 17 and 18 . . .).” Final Act. 4, 12. Purvis correspondingly describes “switch 17 for reopening the valve” and “switch 18 which can be used to close the valve.” Purvis, Fig. 1, 3:36-40. Both switches are operated by a user. See id. at 4:66—5:14. Thus, the Examiner’s findings do not address the claim requirement for a motor controller configured to return the push lever to the home position as a consequence of detecting the leak, automatically, without user intervention. The Examiner’s obviousness determination as to the disengaging return step (b) is therefore not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 7 Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Martin and Purvis. The Examiner’s additional consideration of claims 2, 3, and 5 does not cure the deficiencies as to claim 1. See Final Act. 3^4. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of those claims as unpatentable over Martin and Purvis. B. Obviousness based on Martin, Purvis, and Staffiere Claim 4 depends from claim 1 to specify “the valve is a gate valve.” Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s additional consideration of claim 4 and Staffiere does not cure the deficiencies as to claim 1 noted above. See Final Act. 4—5. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Staffiere. C. Obviousness based on Martin, Purvis, and Okuyama Claim 8 depends from claim 1 to add “a feedback device configured to indicate a position of the handle of the valve.” Appeal Br. 46 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s additional consideration of claim 8 and Okuyama does not cure the deficiencies as to claim 1 noted above. See Final Act. 5. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Okuyama. Claim 23 is an independent claim, reciting in part “a push lever coupled to a shaft of the motor such that when the motor is suitably driven[,] the push lever non-captively engages and drives the handle of the valve.” Appeal Br. 47 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on the combination of Martin and Purvis for this claim limitation, substantially as already described above in connection with claim 1. See Final Act. 9-10. That is, the Examiner relies on Martin’s spring leg 46 as the claimed push lever, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have retained despite 8 Appeal 2015-001399 Application 11/956,564 eliminating spring 45, when modifying Martin to be electronically actuated in light of Purvis. Id. As discussed above, that determination is not adequately supported in the record presently before us. The Examiner’s consideration of dependent claims 24 and 25, and Okuyama, does not cure that deficiency. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claims 23—25 as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Okuyama. D. Obviousness based on Martin, Purvis, and Dwyer or Chin Claims 26 and 27 separately depend from claim 1 to specify certain characteristics of the leak detection sensor. Appeal Br. 48 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s additional consideration of claims 26 and 27, and Dwyer and Chin, does not cure the deficiencies as to claim 1 noted above. See Final Act. 10—11. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Dwyer, or the rejection of claim 27 as unpatentable over Martin, Purvis, and Chin. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5, 8, and 23—27 is reversed. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation