Haines, Bradford et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

13960653 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019)

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.
13/960,653 08/06/2013 Bradford Haines 2617.01-8775.2US 2880
137604 7590 09/23/2019
Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood
170 S. Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
EXAMINER
HICKS, ANGELISA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2019 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):
PTOMail@mcgiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADFORD HAINES, BRIAN WAYNE HOWARD,
MICHAEL P. NELSON, and JAN JUREWICZ
Appeal 2019-001696
Application 13/960,653
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Flowserve Management
Company, appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23. Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Flowserve
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001696
Application 13/960,653

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of attaching or replacing a plug
assembly. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of replacing or attaching a plug head to a plug stem
comprising:
providing a valve plug having a plug stem, a plug stem
base, a plug head, and a fastening mechanism for fastening the
plug stem base to the plug head, the plug head and the plug stem
base each having a diameter greater than a diameter of a major
portion of the plug stem, the plug stem base having a first beveled
edge, the plug head having a second beveled edge, the fastening
mechanism comprising at least two retainer clamps that surround
and engage the first beveled edge of the plug stem base and the
second beveled edge of the plug head;
coupling the fastening mechanism around the plug stem
base and the plug head; and
tightening the fastening mechanism against the first
beveled edge of the plug stem base and the second beveled edge
of the plug head to provide an interference fit between the plug
stem base and the plug head.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–11, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Strong (US Pat. 1,763,486,
issued June 10, 1930) and Leighty (US Pat. 1,093,868, issued Apr. 21,
1914). Final Act. 4.
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Strong, Leighty, and Horning (US Pat. 1,431,662, issued
Oct. 10, 1922). Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2019-001696
Application 13/960,653

3
Claims 7, 12–14, 16, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Strong, Leighty, and Robison (US Pat. 6,793,198
B2, issued Sept. 21, 2004). Final Act. 8, 11.
OPINION
The claims subject to the rejection based on Strong and Leighty are
argued as a group, focusing on limitations common to independent claims 1
and 18, and without separate arguments concerning the dependent claims.
App. Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 3–5. Claim 1 is representative under 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv), and the claims subject to the other rejections are presumed
to be argued based only on dependency. See, e.g., App. Br. 6.
The Examiner correctly found Strong to disclose a valve that in its
ordinary course of operation would perform the basic method2 according to
claim 1, but with a threaded (at 24) “fastening mechanism,” sleeve 26,3
coupling button portion 29, the “plug head,” with valve portion 22, the “plug
stem base,” instead of a fastening mechanism that relies on a exerting a force
against beveled edges to join the components. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
correctly found Leighty to teach that a process for coupling components in
this manner was well-known in the art. Final Act. 5 (discussing the
embodiment depicted in Leighty Figs. 1–4). Expounding on the reasons to
combine the reference teachings in response to Appellant’s assertion there is
no motivation to do so, the Examiner states:

2 If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily
perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to
be unpatentable over the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326–
27 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
3 It is noted that the Examiner refers to reference numeral 24, which refers to
the threads as opposed to coupling sleeve 26. Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2019-001696
Application 13/960,653

4
[A]s described in Leighty, page 1, lines 18-23, the reason to use
such a coupling/decoupling means is to “provide means which
are simple in construction, economical in manufacture, and
which will at the same time be readily adjustable to effect a
proper coupling or joint and also permit the joint to be quickly
uncoupled.” Thus, the rationale behind the modification of
Strong by Leighty is not assertion, but a more simplistic,
economical, easily adjustable and quicker method of
coupling/decoupling the plug stem base and plug head.
Ans. 11–12.
We agree with and adopt as our own this well-reasoned analysis by
the Examiner. It is true that the different forms of coupling, threaded versus
wedge for interference fitting, may each have their own advantages and
disadvantages (App. Br. 6). However this fact, without more, does not
demonstrate that weighing those advantages and disadvantages, and
selecting an appropriate mechanism to achieve what Appellant recognizes is
a very similar result in Strong’s valve,4 would not have been obvious to one
skilled in the art. The requisite level of skill must be attributed to the
hypothetical artisan described in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The Examiner’s proposed combination is not set
forth to “render obvious all possible solutions to [Appellant’s] problem.”
App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Rather, the Examiner’s proposed
combination involves the mere substitution of relatively simple, century-old,
mechanical components. The fact that some amount of judgment and
mechanical skill may be required to arrive at a particular combination (App.
Br. 5) does not necessarily mean that particular combination constitutes a

4 “[T]he disclosure of Strong might seek to solve a similar problem.” App.
Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-001696
Application 13/960,653

5
nonobvious invention. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S.
1, 10–12 (1966) (discussing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248 (1850)).
One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and
common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications
to result in a properly functioning device. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for [an examiner] can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). “It is well-
established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
elements” as Appellant suggests (App. Br. 5). In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED