Ex Parte Swift et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2017

13852604 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 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.
13/852,604 03/28/2013 Jonathan Clark Swift C09-075D 6169
26683 7590 08/08/2017
OATFS torpor atton
EXAMINER
IP LAW DEPT. 10-A3 LINFORD, JAMES ALBERT
1551 WEWATTA STREET
DENVER, CO 80202 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2017 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 JONATHAN CLARK SWIFT, CHARLES CLINTON GRAY,
RANDALL MARK LEASURE, and KEVIN J. MILLER
Appeal 2016-005708
Application 13/852,604
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005708
Application 13/852,604
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and
bracketing added):
1. A hybrid port comprising:
[A.] a bore having a diameter;
[B.] an arcuate sealing surface (15) disposed immediately
adjacent the bore, the arcuate sealing surface is convex with a radius
(R4) that does not originate on an axis (A-A);
[C.] a tapered sealing surface (11) having a cone angle (P) of
approximately 12°; and
[D.] a threaded inner surface (10) disposed axially between the
arcuate surface and the tapered surface.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1,2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Franck (US 3,016,250; iss. Jan. 9, 1962).
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ridenour (US 5,573,285; iss. Nov. 12, 1996).
2
Appeal 2016-005708
Application 13/852,604
Appellants’ Contentions1
1. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The surface to the right of surface (20) is part of the threads for
body (11), see 2:9-12. Franck does not teach that threads (20)
comprise a sealing surface.
App. Br. 4.
2. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “The tapered surface cited by the Examiner
between 17 and 18, is not taught to be a sealing surface as claimed, see
Figure 2.” App. Br. 4.
3. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[The] alternate rejection presented in the final office action refers
to the “surface of 1001” and the “surface of 3001”, each
suggested by the Examiner to be in Ridenour Figure 1. Upon
review of the Ridenour reference Applicant is unable to identify
either item “1001” or item “3001”, neither in Figure 1 nor in the
specification. The absence of identifiable references indicates no
clear explanation is provided by the Examiner for this rejection.
App. Br. 6.
4. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Consistent with the rejection of claim 4, the Examiner cites an
item that does not appear in the Ridenour figures or specification,
namely, “surface of 2001”. Ridenour does not teach a second
tapered surface “2001” with angle a nor is a second tapered
surface identified by the Examiner. No secondary reference is
1 We do not reproduce Appellants’ argument directed to the Franck
reference and claim 5 (App. Br. 4—6) as no such rejection was made by the
Examiner.
3
Appeal 2016-005708
Application 13/852,604
provided in addition to Ridenour. Hence, the alternate rejection
of claim 5 is without merit and should be reversed.
App. Br. 8.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—16) in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are affirmed.
4
Appeal 2016-005708
Application 13/852,604
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
5