McBrien, Gary M.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

14812758 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
14/812,758 07/29/2015 Gary M. McBrien 81749US01 (U380597US) 2484
114172 7590 12/27/2019
Cantor Colburn LLP - Power Controls,
Sensing Systems
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3207
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, PATRICK C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY M. MCBRIEN
Appeal 2019-004005
Application 14/812,758
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004005
Application 14/812,758

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to dual mode fuel pumps for aircraft. Spec.
¶¶ 1–2. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system to provide a pressurized fluid, comprising:
a pump having a pump inlet and a pump outlet, the pump
to provide a fluid flow;
a bypass path to direct the fluid flow from the pump outlet
to the pump inlet;
a load path having a load path pressure, the load path
including a fluid accumulator to accumulate a fluid volume and
at least one load device;
a bypass regulator valve in exclusive fluid communication
with the pump outlet, the bypass path, and the load path, the
bypass regulator valve comprising a body, an inlet side of the
body, an outlet side of the body opposite the inlet side and a
sidewall of the body extending between the inlet and outlet sides
and being disposed immediately adjacent to the pump outlet such
that the bypass path and the load path directly emerge from the
sidewall and the outlet side, respectively; and
a controller to direct the fluid flow to the load path in
response to the load path pressure being less than a low load path
threshold pressure via the bypass regulator valve and to direct the
fluid flow to the bypass path in response to the load path pressure
being greater than a high load path threshold pressure via the
bypass regulator valve.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-004005
Application 14/812,758

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–7, 9–15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Baker,2 Yuan,3 and Terada.4 Final Act.
6.
2. Claims 8, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Baker, Yuan, Terada, and Thompson.5 Final
Act. 15.
OPINION
All of the independent claims require a bypass regulator valve “in
exclusive fluid communication with the pump outlet.” See Appeal Br. 14–
16 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on similar findings for this
limitation in all three claims. See Final Act. 7, 10, 14.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that Baker discloses a
pump with an inlet and outlet, a load device, and a bypass valve. Final Act.
6. The Examiner further finds that Yuan discloses a fluid accumulator, and
determines that it would have been obvious to modify the load path of Baker
with Yuan’s accumulator “for the purpose of reducing pressure ripples
during pump power fluctuation.” Id. at 7. As to the claimed “bypass
regulator valve in exclusive fluid communication with the pump outlet,” the
Examiner finds that Terada discloses this limitation because it teaches a
bypass valve having an inlet, outlet, and sidewall “immediately downstream
of a pump (20) outlet (via 11).” Id. The Examiner determines that “it would

2 US 20150020884 A1, published Jan. 22, 2015 (“Baker”).
3 US 2012/0093968 A1, published Apr. 19, 2012 (“Yuan”).
4 US 8,434,508 B2, issued May 7, 2013 (“Terada”).
5 US 6,412,476 B1, issued July 2, 2002 (“Thompson”).
Appeal 2019-004005
Application 14/812,758

4
have been obvious to modify Baker/Yuan with a means for physically
abutting the bypass regulator valve with the pump outlet, and the bypass
path and the load path directly, physically emerging from the bypass
regulator valve . . . to provide a known structural means to physically couple
the bypass valve to the pump and load path, as necessitated by Baker/Yuan.”
Id.
Appellant argues that Terada’s “relief valve 1 does not provide for
exclusive fluid communication with Terada’s pump 20 as in the claimed
invention” because “some quantity of fluid is always flown toward the
engine parts.” Appeal Br. 8. More specifically, Appellant argues that “we
can assume that at least some, non-zero quantity of the fluid or oil arriving at
the flow splitter proceeds to the engine parts in the embodiments of FIGS. 1
and 2.” Id. at 9. According to Appellant, “any such flows of fluid between
the pump 20 and the engine parts negates any possibility of Terada’s
disclosure including a bypass regulator valve that is in exclusive fluid
communication with the pump outlet.” Id. at 10. Appellant contends that
the Examiner improperly interprets Terada’s pressure relief valve to include
passage 10, and that because passage 10 “is not dependent upon the
operation of the relief valve 1,” the logical conclusion is that the relief valve
1 cannot be defined to include passage 10. Id. at 10–11.
In response, the Examiner construes the “bypass regulator valve in
exclusive fluid communication with a pump outlet” limitation “to only
require a direct, exclusive communication between the pump outlet and an
inlet of the bypass regulator valve in the same manner as the applicant’s
FIG. 1.” Ans. 19. The Examiner finds that both Terada and the
Specification disclose the valve “as the first and only fluid destination
Appeal 2019-004005
Application 14/812,758

5
directly downstream of the pump outlet.” Id. With that construction in
mind, the Examiner finds that it does not matter that Terada’s relief valve 1
does not affect the fluid path through passage 10. Id.
In its Reply, Appellant argues that while it may be true that “Terada’s
bypass regulator is the first fluid destination that is disposed directly
downstream of the pump outlet,” Terada’s bypass regulator is not in
“exclusive communication with the pump outlet” because it is not the only
fluid destination downstream of the pump. Reply Br. 1. Instead, according
to Appellant, Terada allows fluid to flow from the pump outlet to the engine
parts via path 10. Id. at 1–2.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that
Terada discloses a “bypass regulator valve in exclusive fluid communication
with the pump outlet.” First, we disagree with the Examiner’s construction
of the limitation to the extent that it merely requires a valve location directly
downstream of the pump outlet. Ans. 19. Instead, we view the proper
construction of “exclusive communication with the pump outlet” to require a
bypass regulator valve as the only destination in communication with the
pump outlet. This construction finds support in the ordinary meaning of
“exclusive” and the Specification, which discloses bypass regulator valve
118 as the only structure connected to pump outlet 115. See Spec. Fig. 1.
The Specification also indicates that “bypass regulator valve 118 can direct
the fluid flow from the pump outlet 115 to either the bypass path 119 or the
load path 121”—i.e., fluid cannot flow directly from pump outlet 115 to
either bypass path 119 or load path 121 without first passing through valve
118. Id. ¶ 14.
Appeal 2019-004005
Application 14/812,758

6
Second, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Terada’s relief
valve includes Terada’s path 10, such that the inlet to the valve is located to
the right side of path 10. Final Act. 7; see also Terada Fig. 1. Terada does
not describe the structure defining its passage 10 as part of its relief valve 1.
Instead, Terada describes its relief valve 1 as “controlling pressure within a
fluid supplying passage 10 through which fluid (e.g., oil) is supplied to an
engine.” Terada, 2:66–3:1. Terada also describes fluid passage 10 as the
means for conveying fluid to the engine parts, and the relief valve 1 having
various structures all located “in the fluid supplying passage 10.” Id. at 3:2–
9. Further, Terada describes the “first port 11 by which the fluid enters the
relief valve,” which is in the bottom middle of fluid passage 10, not to the
right of the passage 10 as the Examiner found. Id. at 3:15–16, Fig. 1.
Because Terada’s passage 10 is not part of its valve 1, passage 10 provides
some fluid flow directly to the engine parts downstream of passage 10
without passing through valve 1, as Appellant alleges. See Appeal Br. 8–10.
Accordingly, the outlet of Terada’s pump 20 is in direct fluid
communication with valve 1 as well as engine parts downstream of valve 1,
such that Terada fails to disclose valve 1 in exclusive communication with
the outlet to pump 20.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejections of
independent claims 1, 10, or 18, which all include the same “exclusive fluid
communication” requirement. See Appeal Br. 7, 15–16 (Claims App.). The
Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims do not rely on additional prior
art in a manner that remedies the deficiencies noted above. See Final Act.
8–9, 11–12, 14–15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
Appeal 2019-004005
Application 14/812,758

7
dependent claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 for the same reasons discussed
above with respect to the independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–15,
17, 18, 20
103 Baker, Yuan,
Terada
1–7, 9–15,
17, 18, 20
8, 16, 19 103 Baker, Yuan,
Terada, Thompson
8, 16, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–20
REVERSED