Ex Parte Willeke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2017

12218232 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 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.
12/218,232 07/12/2008 Roshan Willeke P070157/10US 2886
20676 7590
ALFRED J MANGELS
4729 CORNELL ROAD
CINCINNATI, OH 452412433
EXAMINER
LIU, HENRY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2017 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 ROSHAN WILLEKE and ANDREAS BIRK
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Roshan Willeke and Andreas Birk (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 4—6, and 8—17. App.
Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants claim a pressure relief valve for a hydraulic system used to
control “a belt-driven conical-pulley transmission (CVT).” Spec. 11. The
claimed pressure relief valve 1 is shown in annotated Figure 1 below.
2
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
Figure 1, above, illustrates the claimed pressure relief valve including
hydraulic plate 15 having a bore, and within the bore, valve cone 9
(annotated in yellow), is provided with conical sealing surface 23 that is
urged against inlet 21 of intermediate plate 17 by the compressive force of
conical spring 11. Id. ]Hf 27—28.
The Specification states that valve cone 9 includes lateral force
support 39 “to align the angle of the valve cone axially relative to that of the
orifice.” Id. ^ 6. The Specification explains that the arrangement of lateral
force support 39 contacting the inner surface of spring 11 “makes it possible
to achieve a good tightness of seal, as well as positive hysteresis behavior of
the check valve.” Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A pressure relief valve for a hydraulic system for
controlling a belt-driven conical-pulley transmission, said
valve comprising:
a hydraulic plate having a valve bore for receiving
a valve cone, the valve bore including a first end opening
and a second end opening axially spaced from the first end
opening;
an orifice overlying the first end opening of the
valve bore and defining an inlet opening to admit a stream
of a hydraulic medium, the inlet opening having a central
axis;
a valve cone including a cylindrical body having an
outer diameter smaller than an inner diameter of the valve
bore for receiving flow of hydraulic fluid between the
cylindrical body and the valve bore, the valve cone having
a first end terminating in a first conical surface, the valve
cone having a central axis and positioned within the valve
bore and axially movable therewithin toward and away
3
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
from the inlet opening to selectively open and block the
inlet opening by the first conical surface, the valve bore
including a first outlet opening positioned adjacent to and
on a downstream side of the inlet opening defined by the
orifice, and a second outlet opening defined by the second
end opening of the valve bore;
a compression coil spring carried by the valve cone
to press the first conical surface against the orifice for
sealing contact between the first conical surface and the
orifice, the spring having a first end abutting a step carried
by the valve cone and a second end spaced axially from
the first end and abutting a bore stop formed in the
hydraulic plate; and
a lateral force support member extending radially
outwardly of and carried by the valve cone at a second end
of the valve cone that is spaced axially from the first end
of the valve cone, wherein the lateral force support
member serves for limiting axial misalignment of the
valve cone relative to the longitudinal axis of the valve
bore and for aligning the valve cone central axis
substantially coaxially with the central axis of the inlet
orifice by engagement of a radially outermost surface of
the lateral force support member with an inner cylindrical
surface that is defined by radially innermost surfaces of
coils of the coil spring.
(Emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4—6, 8, 9, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cowan (US Pat. No. 2,930,401, Mar. 29, 1960)
in view of Weirich et al. (US Pat. No. 4,790,347, Dec. 13, 1988). Claim 10
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowan,
Weirich, and Truax et al. (US Pat. No. 5,174,327, Dec. 29, 1992). Claims
11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
4
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
Cowan, Weirich, and Riley et al. (US Pat. No. 3,626,977, Dec. 14, 1971).
Claims 14—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cowan, Weirich, and Fenton (US Pat. No. 4,869,705, Sept. 26, 1989).
ANALYSIS
Unpatentability of claims 1, 4—6, and 8—17 over Cowan and Weirich, or
Cowan, Weirich and one of Truax, Riley, or Fenton
Claim 1 is the only independent claim, and the remaining claims
depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1. See Claims App’x. Al—
A4. We address initially claim 1, as the analysis of claim 1 is dispositive to
all the issues on appeal.
Claim 1
We need not reach the Examiner’s underlying combination of Cowan
and Weirich because, as discussed below, we determine that the Examiner’s
fundamental interpretation of Cowan, as applied to the language of claim 1,
is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence so as to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
The Examiner found that “Cowan teaches . . . engagement of a
radially outermost surface of the lateral force support member (32) with an
inner cylindrical surface that is defined by radially innermost surfaces of
coils of the coil spring (58),” as called for in claim 1. Final Act. 2—4. In
making this finding, the Examiner explained that “[t]he axial end portion of
(32) engages the radially inner surface of the coil spring (58).” Id. at 4.
Upon receiving Appellants’ Appeal Brief disputing this interpretation of
Cowan’s structure, the Examiner explained further that “[t]he axial spring
end of element 32 meets the claim limitations for the lateral force support
member.” Ans. 9. The Examiner determined that a person of ordinary skill
5
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
in the art would have recognized that “element 32 provides a redundant
structure for preventing the misalignment of the valve body since it would
press the spring coils against the inner bore of the valve body.” Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner misconstrues the structure and
teaching of Cowan as it is applied to the specific elements of claim 1. App.
Br. 9—10. Appellants contend that the lateral force member of Cowan’s
valve body 32 is not simply the reduced diameter “spring end” of element 32
that is encircled by spring 58, but includes bearing flange 34, and that flange
34 is properly the “radially outermost surface” required by claim 1. Id. at
10, Reply Br. 3^4. The specific structural difference from the claimed
invention, Appellants assert, is that “the radially outermost surface of flange
34 of the Cowan structure, as is clearly shown in Fig. 2 of the Cowan
reference, engages the inner surface of valve chamber 14,” not the
“innermost surfaces of coils of the coil spring” as called for in claim 1. Id.
Figure 2 of Cowan is reproduced below with annotations for clarity.
Figure 2 of Cowan, above, depicts valve 10 and valve body 32
annotated in yellow.
6
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
Cowan’s specification describes valve body 32 having flanges 34 and
36.
The valve member 30 includes an elongated, cylindrical body 32
formed from aluminum, or the like, and provided with a radially
directed bearing flange 34 at one extremity which co-operates
with a somewhat larger bearing surface 36 adjacent the opposite
extremity of the body 32 to support the body 32 for relatively
free sliding movement in the valve chamber 14.
Cowan 1, 3:3—9. Based on our review of Cowan’s disclosed valve structure
as compared to the specific claim language, we determine that Appellants
have the better argument and that the language of claim 1 distinguishes over
Cowan. See In re Neugebauer, 330 F.2d 353, 356 (CCPA 1964) (“The
claims as a whole must be analyzed in light of the disclosure to see if the
article defined thereby is distinguishable in fact, vis-a-vis in verbis, over the
prior art”), n. 4 (“This principle, of general legal application, is immortalized
in Latin: In verbis, non verba, sed res et ratio, quaeranda est. (In the
construction of words, not the mere words, but the thing and the meaning,
are to be inquired after.)”).
The most reasonable understanding of Cowan’s disclosure as set forth
above, is that valve body 32 includes bearing flange 34 as inclusive structure
corresponding to a lateral force member. Id. With this understanding, the
“radially outermost surface” of valve body 32 and a “lateral force support”
at the requisite end of the valve body includes bearing flange 34, not just the
radially reduced end surface of body 32 encircled by coil spring 58. Nothing
in Cowan suggests that an outermost radial structure of the body, i.e. bearing
flange 34, is intended to contact coil spring 58. Accordingly, as shown in
Cowan’s Figure 2, above, the radially outermost surface of Cowan’s lateral
7
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
force member engages the inner wall of valve chamber 14, not the “radially
innermost surfaces of coils of the coil spring,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner is correct, to an extent, that the spring end of body 32
in Cowan is in contact with the inner radial surfaces of spring 58. See Ans.
9 (In response to Appellants’ arguments regarding the “radially outermost”
limitation the Examiner replied that “[t]he axial spring end of element 32
meets the claim limitations for the lateral force support member. Limitations
from the specification or drawings are not read into the claims.”). The
spring end of body 32, however, does not meet the limitation that the lateral
support member “extend[] radially outwardly of. . . the valve cone at a
second end of the valve cone.” It is instead coextensive with the valve cone
body, and does not extend radially outwardly therefrom. The Examiner’s
finding that only the spring end of Cowan’s body 32 is the “lateral force
member” structure is incomplete and does not adequately address
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the limitation in claim 1 requiring
“engagement of a radially outermost surface of the lateral force support
member with an inner cylindrical surface that is defined by radially
innermost surfaces of coils of the coil spring.” Even if the spring end
portion of body 32 is “a redundant structure for preventing the misalignment
of the valve body,” (Ans. 9) as the Examiner alleges, we do not agree with
the Examiner’s finding that only this reduced diameter “spring end” portion
of body 32 can be ascribed to the “lateral force support” claim limitation.
For these reasons, we determine that claim 1 distinguishes over
Cowan. And, because Weirich is not applied by the Examiner in any
manner that remedies this deficiency in Cowan, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
8
Appeal 2015-003758
Application 12/218,232
Claims 4—6, and 8—17
Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, claims 4—6 and 8—17,
which all depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, are also
nonobvious and we do not sustain the rejections of these dependent claims.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 4—6, and 8—17.
REVERSED
9