Ex Parte Savla

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

11956564 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
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2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 6, 7, and 9—12 {see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