Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2020005116 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

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.
15/678,317 08/16/2017 Peter J. Dowd 57891US02;
67010-535 PUS2
9901
26096 7590 04/01/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
DO, HAILEY KYUNG AE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER J. DOWD, JOHN M. DEHAIS,
BLAIR A. SMITH, TIMOTHY R. BOYSEN,
KEITH J. BROOKY, AARON T. NARDI, and
KEVIN M. RANKIN

Appeal 2020-005116
Application 15/678,317
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ROBERT L. KINDER, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.1 We AFFIRM.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “all
of the joint inventors”). “The real party in interest is the assignee in this
application, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation” which “[u]ltimately” is
“owned by United Technologies Corporation.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
Appeal 2020-005116
Application 15/678,317

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “relates to a butterfly valve having a
wear-resistant coating.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) “A typical butterfly valve includes a
housing that defines an air flow passage,” a “shaft” that “supports a butterfly
disk,” and an “actuator” that “rotates the shaft to selectively open or close
the butterfly disk to control the air flow through the passage in the housing.”
(Id. ¶ 3.) The Appellant is particularly concerned with “[a] thrust plate” for
such a butterfly valve. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Independent Claims on Appeal
1. A thrust plate for a butterfly valve, the thrust plate
comprising:
a thrust plate body defining a recess that extends between
a bottom thrust surf ace, side walls, and an open top; and
a nickel-based or cobalt-based wear-resistant coating
located on the bottom thrust surface, the wear-resistant coating
being harder than the thrust plate body.

11. A butterfly valve comprising:
a valve housing defining a flow passage there through;
a shaft extending in the valve housing and including a
butterfly disk mounted thereon within the flow passage;
a thrust plate including a thrust plate body defining a
recess that receives an end of the shaft, and the recess extends
between a bottom thrust surface, side walls, and an open top; and
a wear-resistant coating located on the bottom thrust
surface.

20. A method of installing a thrust plate on a butterfly valve,
the method comprising:
securing a thrust plate to a valve housing that defines a
flow passage there through such that an end of a shaft, which
extends within the valve housing and includes a butterfly disk
mounted thereon, is received into a recess of the thrust plate
body, the recess extends between a bottom thrust surface, side
Appeal 2020-005116
Application 15/678,317

3
walls, and an open top, and the bottom thrust surface includes a
wear resistant coating thereon.
References
Breton US 7,262,240 B1 Aug. 28, 2007
Mondy US 2003/0230926 A1 Dec. 18, 2003
Robinson US 4,103,866 Aug. 1, 1977
Sikorcin US 3,508,737 Apr. 28, 1970
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sikorcin in view of Breton. (Final Action 3.)
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sikorcin in view of Breton, and Robinson. (Final
Action 4.)
The Examiner rejects claims 6–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sikorcin in view of Breton, Robinson, and engineering
expedient. (Final Action 5.)
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sikorcin in view of Mondy. (Final Action 7.)
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sikorcin in view of Mondy and Robinson. (Final Action 10.)
The Examiner rejects claims 14–17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sikorcin in view of Mondy, Robinson, and engineering
expedient. (Final Action 10.)
ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are all premised upon a
finding that Sikorcin teaches the “thrust plate” and the “thrust plate body”
Appeal 2020-005116
Application 15/678,317

4
required by the independent claims. (See Final Action 3–10.) Sikorcin
discloses a butterfly valve which is shown in the drawing reproduced below.

The above drawing “is an axial sectional view taken through a butterfly
valve.” (Sikorcin c2:19–20.) Sikorcin’s butterfly valve comprises “a valve
body 10 having a cylindrical valve body bore 11” in which “a butterfly valve
disc 13 rotates to control fluid flow through the valve.” (Id. c2:33–36.)
“The valve disc 13 is mounted on a valve shaft 15 which is suitably
bearingly supported at opposite ends such as by the illustrated needle
bearings 16 that are held in place by end caps 17 and 18.” (Id. c2:42–46.)
There seems to be no dispute that the above drawing shows a “spring”
and a “circular/ball-shaped object” at the lower end of the valve shaft 15
(Appeal Br. 5); and there seems to be no dispute that Sikorcin “does not
explicitly describe the function” of these elements (Advisory Action 2).
Appeal 2020-005116
Application 15/678,317

5
According to the Examiner, Sikorcin’s bottom end cap 18 is a “thrust
plate.” (Final Action 3.) The Examiner explains that, because the needle
bearings 16 “are not fixed to” the valve shaft 15, “the axial force along a
longitudinal, rotational axis of the valve shaft would then transferred to the
ball bearing and thereby to the end cap [18].” (Id. at 13.)
The Examiner also explains that the spring at the bottom end of the
valve shaft 15 “ensures that the thrust force from the ball bearing (and/or
valve shaft) remains in contact with the end cap [18].” (Final Action 13.)
More specifically, downward forces on the shaft 15 would “cause
compression of the spring which then transfers the compression force to the
ball bearing.” (Advisory Action 2.) Thus, although Sikorcin’s valve
shaft 15 “does not directly bear against” the end cap 18, the shaft 15 “does
indeed cause thrust force(s)” which the end cap 18 “must bear.” (Id.)
The Examiner further clarifies that a dictionary definition of the word
thrust is “to push or drive with force” and so a thrust plate, “by definition, is
merely a plate or disc, which receives a pushing or driving force.”
(Answer 14.) Thus, according to the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the
art would appreciate that, in Sikorcin’s illustrated butterfly valve, the end
cap 18 could receive a “thrust force” when the spring urges the ball-shaped
object thereagainst. (Id.)
The Appellant advances arguments premised upon the explicit content
of Sikorcin not containing an express statement that a downward force is
ever applied to the end cap 18. Specifically, the Appellant argues that
“Sikorcin does not refer to element 18 as a thrust plate, nor describe its
function as a thrust plate” and so “whether the shaft [15] ‘bears against’ the
end cap [18] is not clear.” (Appeal Br. 4.) The Appellant argues that
Appeal 2020-005116
Application 15/678,317

6
Sikorcin is “silent” on the function of “the spring at the bottom.” (Id. at 5.)
And the Appellant argues that Sikorcin does not “explicitly describe the
circular/ball-shaped object, its function, or any materials from which the
circular or ball-shaped object and end cap are made of.” (Id.)
The trouble with the Appellant’s arguments is that the obviousness
analysis should not be “confined” by “overemphasis” on “the explicit
content” of prior art references. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
419 (2007).) Put another way, the obviousness analysis “need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim.” (Id.) Indeed, “the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ” can be taken into consideration. (Id.)
Here, the Examiner offers cogent technical reasoning as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would infer that Sikorcin’s end cap 18 could
constitute a thrust plate, and the Appellant does nothing to call this technical
reasoning into question.3
As for the Examiner’s dictionary definition of the word “thrust,” the
Appellant contends that “the Examiner cannot take any definition that is
deemed suitable,” and the Appellant implies that the Examiner must provide
“competing definitions” and an “explanation of why the selected definition
is the most appropriate among the competing definitions.” (Reply Br. 2.)
However, the Appellant had the opportunity to submit a more suitable
definition for consideration in the Reply Brief, and did not do so. Rather,
the Appellant merely asserted that it was “improperly deprive[d]” of the

3 Moreover, Sikorcin teaches that “any suitable bearing arrangement may be
provided” (Sikorcin c2:46–47), indicating that one of ordinary skill in the art
could infer an embodiment of its butterfly valve in which the end cap 18
functioned as a thrust plate.
Appeal 2020-005116
Application 15/678,317

7
opportunity to “assess the definition” (id. at 3), even though a reply brief
provides a perfect vehicle for this assessment.
In a similar vein, the Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claim language “was not made in light of the
[S]pecification, nor did it apparently take into consideration an interpretation
that those of ordinary skill in the art would reach.” (Reply Br. 2.) Yet the
Appellant offers no alternative claim interpretation, much less insight as to
how the Specification would support, and/or why one of ordinary skill
would reach, such an alternative interpretation.
Thus, on the record before us, we are not persuaded of reversible error
and, therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 103 Sikorcin, Breton 1–4
5, 10 103 Sikorcin, Breton,
Robinson
5, 10
6–9 103 Sikorcin, Breton,
Robinson
6–9
11, 18, 20,
21
103 Sikorcin, Mondy, 11, 18, 20,
21

13 103 Sikorcin, Mondy,
Robinson
13
14–17, 19 103 Sikorcin, Mondy,
Robinson
14–17, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–21

Appeal 2020-005116
Application 15/678,317

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED