Ex Parte Thomas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

13172078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 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.
13/172,078 06/29/2011 Kurt R. Thomas 508144 6643
19636 7590 03/14/2017
Reinhart (Schneider only)
2215 Perry green Way
Rockford, IL 61107
EXAMINER
ARUNDALE, ROBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 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):
rockmail@reinhartlaw.com
patent-docketing@schneider-electric.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KURT R. THOMAS
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’
decision2 rejecting claims 1 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by McHugh (US 4,993,453; iss. Feb. 19, 1991).3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Schneider Electric
Buildings, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated August 13, 2014
(“Final Act.”).
3 Claims 3—5, 10-14, and 18 have been allowed. Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A ball valve having a fully open position to allow
fluid flow through the ball valve, and a fully closed position to
prevent fluid flow through the ball valve, the ball valve
comprising:
a housing having an inlet and an outlet and an internal
cavity positioned between the inlet and the outlet, wherein a flow
path extends through the housing and between the inlet and the
outlet;
a non-spherical ball valve member positioned within the
internal cavity and within the flow path, the non-spherical valve
member having a passageway therethrough that is selectively
alignable with the flow path, the non-spherical valve member
rotatable within the internal cavity to transition the ball valve
between the fully open position and the fully closed position and
vice versa; and
wherein a rotation of the non-spherical valve member of
less than or equal to forty-five degrees transitions the ball valve
between the fully opened position and the fully closed position
and vice versa.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 15
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner finds, inter
alia, that McHugh’s valve member 84 corresponds to the claimed ball valve
member and is non-spherical. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that
McHugh’s valve member 84 is spherical. In support, Appellant submits that
2
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
“McHugh states, ‘the valve member 84 is carried by a pair of annular seats
86, 96 which have an inner surface 88 that conforms to the spherical shape
of the valve member 84.’” Id. (citing McHugh 5:56—59); see also Reply Br.
6—7. Comparing Figures 3 and 4 of Appellant’s Specification to Figure 6 of
McHugh, the Examiner determines that McHugh’s valve member 84 is
spherical or non-spherical to the same extent that Appellant’s claimed ball
valve member is spherical or non-spherical. Ans. 4—8.
Figure 3 of the Specification is reproduced below.
Figure 3 of the Specification depicts a front view of valve member 30. Spec.
130. Figure 4 of the Specification is reproduced below.
3
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
Figure 4 of the Specification depicts a top view of valve member 30 as
shown in Figure 3. Spec. 131. The Specification discloses that Figure 4
depicts a top view of valve member 30 of Figure 3, wherein “the non-
spherical shape ... is evident.” Id. 1 57. The Specification further discloses
that “valve member 30 has ... [a] ring-shaped neck portion 108 [that]
extends radially outward from [a] hemispherical head portion 106” and that
“[t]he ring-shaped neck portion has a second width W2, which is less than
the width Wi of the hemispherical head portion 106,” and “[t]he
hemispherical head portion 106 also has a width W3” and “the ring-shaped
neck portion 108 has a width W4,” wherein “W3 is generally greater than
width W4.” Id. 11 57, 58; see also id. at Fig 4. The Specification states that
“[a]s a result, the outer periphery of the valve member 30 has voids or
pockets 110 positioned on either side of the ring-shaped neck portion 108 to
achieve the aforementioned width differentials between the hemispherical
head portion 106 and ring-shaped neck portion 108.” Id. 1 59.
Thus, the Specification describes a “non-spherical” valve member as
one having an apparent spherical surface (see id. at Figs. 3, 4 (reference
numeral 30)), except that surface portions of the sphere have been removed
to form voids 110, wherein the portion of the spherical surface between the
voids defines a ring-shaped neck portion, which extends from the remainder
of the spherical surface of the valve member (the hemispherical head
portion).
Figure 6 of McHugh is reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
Figure 6 of McHugh depicts valve member 84, as shown in the valve in
Figure 5. McHugh discloses that “the valve member [has] three apertures
201, 202, 203 arranged on its outer periphery.” McHugh 6:63—64.
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding that McHugh’s valve member 84 is “a non-spherical ball valve
member” as claimed, because although the valve member 84 appears
generally spherical (and, as Appellant correctly submits, is referred to in
McHugh as spherical), valve member 84 has apertures, for example, 201,
203, wherein surface portions of the sphere have been removed to form
voids defining a ring-shaped neck portion between apertures 201, 203, as
determined by the Examiner, infra, which ring-shaped neck portion extends
radially from the remainder of the spherical surface of the valve member
(i.e., the hemispherical head portion), for example, the generally
hemispherical portion of valve member 84 where void 202 is formed.4
4 Notably, McHugh also discloses valve members comprising “a cylinder”
or “a truncated cone,” which are also non-spherical in shape. McHugh
5
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 15.
Dependent claim 16
Claim 16, which depends from claim 15, recites “wherein the valve
member incudes a head portion and a ring-shaped neck portion extending
away from the head portion.” Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.). The Examiner
determines McHugh discloses the claimed head portion and ring-shaped
neck portion as identified by the Examiner in Figure 6 of McHugh,
reproduced below. Final Act. 4.
Annotated Figure 6 of McHugh depicts valve member 84, with annotations
by the Examiner identifying a ring-shaped portion and a head portion.
Appellant argues that the meaning of the claim terms “head portion”
and “ring-shaped neck portion” “are not commonly understood by those
skilled in the art,” and therefore, the prior art must meet the “physical
7:29-37, Figs. 10, 11.
6
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
description” of these claim elements, according to the Specification. Appeal
Br. 9 (citing Spec. 57—59); see also Reply Br. 9. Thus, Appellant submits
that “[t]he head portion must have a first width that is larger than a second
width of the ring-shaped portion” and “[perpendicular to these two widths,
the head portion has to have a third width that is greater than the fourth
width of the ring-shaped neck portion.” Id.
We do not agree with Appellant that the Specification defines the
claim terms “head portion” and “neck portion” so as to require these
portions to have certain relative width dimensions. See generally, Spec. An
applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the
presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary
meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from
its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellant fails to clearly set forth such a definition
of “head portion” and “neck portion” in the Specification. Accordingly,
these terms should be given there ordinary meaning and broadest reasonable
interpretation. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2003).
An ordinary meaning of the term “head,” consistent with the
Specification, is “the front or foremost part of something,”5 and an ordinary
meaning of the term “neck,” consistent with the Specification, is “a
relatively narrow or constructed part joining two other parts or located at an
5 Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1042 (1993).
7
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
end.”6 Thus, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s finding that
apertures 201, 203 create a ring-shaped neck portion (i.e., the surface of
valve member 84 between apertures 201, 203, as identified in Figure 6 of
McHugh as annotated by the Examiner, infra), which extends away from a
head portion (i.e., the remaining surface of valve member 84, albeit with
aperture 202; the claims do not exclude an aperture (or void) in the surface
of the head portion).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Dependent claim 17
Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, recites “wherein the valve
member incudes a passageway extending through the ring-shaped portion.”
Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines that McHugh’s
valve member 84 “includes a passageway extending through the ring-shaped
neck portion (extending from 201 to 203).” Final Act. 4; see the Examiner’s
annotated Figure 6 of McHugh infra). Appellant argues that “the annotated
assertions clearly do not meet the claimed limitation as understood in light
of definition given thereto in the Specification.” Appeal Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 12.
However, the Specification does not define the claim term
“passageway.” See generally, Spec. An ordinary and customary definition
of the claim term “passageway” is “a way that allows passage to or from a
place or between two points.”7 8McHugh discloses that
6 Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1511 (1993).
7 Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1650 (1993).
8
Appeal 2015-006649
Application 13/172,078
[t]he first, second and third apertures are generally disposed
peripherally on the valve member in a manner so that rotation of
the valve member in the valve about an axis perpendicular to the
axes of all three apertures can selectively bring the apertures into
(and out of) communication with the inlet and outlet of the valve
(McHugh 7:6—12), such that a passageway (in accordance with the ordinary
and customary meaning of that term) extends through the ring-shaped
portion defined, according to the Examiner’s findings, by the voids or
apertures 201, 203.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 15—17 is AFFIRMED.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9