Ex Parte Zhang

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 2013

11826226 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ZHENGPING ZHANG ____________________ Appeal 2011-008175 Application 11/826,226 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008175 Application 11/826,226 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Zhengping Zhang (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3. The Examiner withdrew claims 4, 5, and 7-20 from consideration.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An internal valve for being used only inside an inflatable object having at least a main chamber and a supplemental chamber wherein said main chamber is directly in fluid communication with the environment, said supplemental chamber is only indirectly in fluid communication with the environment through an opening to said main chamber, and said internal valve seals said opening, comprising: 1 Appellant raises additional issues pertaining to the Examiner’s failure to designate claim 1 as a generic claim and urging withdrawal of the restriction on the inventions/species encompassed by claims 4-14. App. Br. 7-9. We do not review these issues, because they relate to matters reviewable by petition to the Technology Center Director (see MPEP § 1002.02(c) – 2 (8th Ed., Rev. 9, Aug. 2012). See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1201 (the Board will not ordinarily hear a question that is reviewable by petition); In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403-04 (CCPA 1971) (stating that there are many kinds of decisions made by examiners that are not appealable to the Board when they are not directly connected with the merits of issues involving rejections of claims, and holding that “the kind of adverse decisions of examiners which are reviewable by the board must be those which relate, at least indirectly, to matters involving the rejection of claims”)); and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967) (holding that the refusal of an examiner to enter an amendment of claims is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, and not by appeal to the Board). Appeal 2011-008175 Application 11/826,226 3 (a) a check valve for inflatable objects, and (b) a discharging means for externally controlling said check valve, whereby a fluid can flow into said supplemental chamber from said main chamber through said check valve while said fluid can be confined in said supplement chamber by said check valve and released with said discharging means. Evidence The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Newborn US 1,382,531 Jun. 21, 1921 Lin ‘888 Lin ‘101 US 2003/0145888 A1 US 2004/0226101 A1 Aug. 7, 2003 Nov. 18, 2004 Rejections Appellant requests our review of the following rejections: I. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Newborn and Lin ‘101; and II. Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Newborn, Lin ‘101, and Lin ‘888. OPINION The Examiner’s rejections are grounded in part on the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to modify Newborn’s mattress by including the unidirectional valve 300 of Lin ‘101 between the main chamber (body 5, casing 10) and the supplemental chamber (bulging pillow portion 9) without also including an exhaust port in the supplemental chamber. Ans. 4, 7. Lin ‘101 discloses a unidirectional valve 300 placed between an upper chamber 201 and a lower chamber 202, so that air flows through the valve Appeal 2011-008175 Application 11/826,226 4 from the upper chamber into the lower chamber. Fig. 2, paras. [0028], [0030]. However, Lin ‘101 also discloses an inlet port 212 in the upper chamber 201 to inflate the upper and lower chambers of the mattress 200 and an exhaust port 214 in the lower chamber 202 to deflate the mattress. Fig. 2, paras. [0028], [0030]. To inflate the mattress, fluid is introduced through the inlet port 212 and passes through the upper chamber 201 and through the unidirectional valve 300 into the lower chamber 202. Para. [0028]. When both chambers are filled, the unidirectional valve 300 will prevent reverse flow of fluid from the lower chamber into the upper chamber. Id. To deflate the mattress, the exhaust port 214 is opened, resulting in a decrease in pressure in the lower chamber 202, with the pressure differential between the upper and lower chambers opening the unidirectional valve 300 to allow passage of fluid in the upper chamber 201 through to the lower chamber 202 and eventually through the exhaust port 214. Para. [0030]. Thus, we agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art combining the unidirectional valve teaching of Lin ‘101 with Newborn’s mattress, considering the references in their entirety, would have been prompted to also provide an exhaust port in Newborn’s pillow portion 9. The Examiner’s rejections therefore are premised on flawed reasoning, and we will not sustain them. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2011-008175 Application 11/826,226 5 hh