null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 7, 2019

14376208 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 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.
14/376,208 08/01/2014 Jarmo Helasuo 67183-059
PUS1;19867US-AA
7166
26096 7590 11/07/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
PHAM, TUONGMINH NGUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2019 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):
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 JARMO HELASUO and ARTO HUOTARI
__________

Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 6–8, 12–14, 16, and 19–23.
Claims 4, 5, and 9–11 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 15,
17, and 18 have been canceled. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Marioff
Corporation OY, which is owned by United Technologies Corporation.”
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 1, filed Oct. 23, 2018.
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “sprinklers [that are] positioned
strategically within an area where fire protection is desired.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 20 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A fire suppression sprinkler, comprising:
a housing that establishes a flow path for discharging fire
suppression fluid;
a water seat that is configured to close off the flow path;
a polymer seal supported within the housing and engaging
the water seat for sealing an interface between the flow path and
the water seat, the seal being supported within the housing in a
manner that the seal remains in the housing in a condition in
which fire suppression fluid flows out of the fire suppression
sprinkler;
a spring that biases the polymer seal into engagement with
the water seat, the spring being upstream of the polymer seal and
the water seat; and
an activation bulb that is breakable responsive to a
condition in which fire suppression is desirable, the water seat
having a first end received against the seal and a second end
received against the bulb.

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–3, 6–8, 12–14, 16, and 19–232 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Silva (US 2006/0113093 A1, published

2 The Examiner omits claims 20–23 in the header for this rejection. See
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 5, dated May 16, 2018. However, we
understand claims 20–23 are also rejected because these claims are
discussed in the body of the rejection. See id. at 11–14.
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

3
June 1, 2006), Ondracek3 (US 5,775,431, issued July 7, 1998), and Wotton
(US 4,217,961, issued Aug. 19, 1980).
II. Claims 1–3, 6–8, 12, 13, 16, and 19–224 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ondracek and Wotton.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness over Silva, Ondracek, and Wotton
As to independent claims 1 and 20, the Examiner finds that Silva
discloses a fire suppression sprinkler comprising a seal (guide tube 56)
supported within a housing and engaging a water seat (trigger seat 62).
Final Act. 5–7, 11–12 (citing Silva Figs. 1A, 1D). The Examiner
acknowledges that Silva does not disclose that “seal 56 is a polymer seal or
includes [a] polymer.” Id. at 8, 12. The Examiner, however, finds that
Wotton teaches another fire sprinkler having a water seat 40
engaging a seal at 47 and 49. Wotton further teaches that a low
friction material like Teflon (Teflon is known by other names
including polytetrafluoroethylene or synthetic fluoropolymer)
can be coated onto a sealing surface to provide for a smooth
stick-slip free surface for quick expelling of the water seat when
the glass bulb shatter and present only minimum interference to
the flow of the extinguishing fluid (Col. 3, ln 55–Col. 4, ln 1).
Id. at 8, 12–13; see also Wotton, Fig. 3. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify the fire suppression sprinkler of Silva to

3 The Examiner omits Ondracek in the header for this rejection. See Final
Act. 5. However, Ondracek is discussed in the body of the rejection. See id.
at 8.
4 The Examiner lists claim 14 in the header for this rejection. See Final Act.
14. However, claim 14 is not discussed in the body of the rejection. See id.
at 14–19.
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

4
“incorporate the teachings of Wotton to provide a polymer coating at the
sealing surfaces at [guide tube] 56 [of Silva]” because “[d]oing so would
provide a stick-slip free engagement with the water seat to minimize
accidental leakage prior to activation, and to minimize interference of the
fluid flow, as taught by Wotton in Column 3, line 55 – Column 4, line 1.”
Final Act. 8–9, 13.5
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rationale as to Wotton
“teaching that Teflon will contribute to the plug 20 being expelled from the
fluid passage to ‘present only the minimum interference’ to the flow of
extinguishing fluid as a supposed basis to make Silva’s metal guide tube out
of a polymer such as Teflon” “fails to have the required rational
underpinnings” because “the guide tube 56 of the Silva reference is never
expelled from the sprinkler and has a central opening through which fluid
flows unhindered.” Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner responds that “Wotton was relied upon to teach that a
coating of polymer (Teflon) at a sealing surface of metal, provide[s] a stick-
slip free for when the engagement between two parts need to be detached
(col. 3, line 56–67)” to provide the advantage of “easy detachment when
adding the polymer (Teflon) coating to the sealing surface between [Silva’s
guide tube] 56 and [trigger seat] 62” because guide tube 56 “in Silva is
compressed onto seat 62 for an extended period of time and when there is a
fire emergency, it is crucial that [guide tube] 56 and [trigger] seat 62 be
detached for the sprinkler to operate.” Ans. 5.6

5 In this rejection, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Ondracek for
disclosing a water seat that closes off the flow path. Final Act. 8, 12.
6 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Feb. 1, 2019.
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

5
Appellant has the better position here. Wotton discloses that in an
alternative construction, low friction material, such as Fluon or Teflon, “may
be provided merely as a coating on a rubber or metal core of the plug at least
at that surface which constitutes the sealing surface.” See Wotton 3:55–62.
Wotton also discloses “[a] further advantage of using the low friction
material in this manner” is that “in the event that the glass bulb shatters[,]
the plug will be expelled quickly from the fluid passage and present only the
minimum interference to the flow of extinguishant fluid.” See id. at 3:62–
4:1.
The Examiner proposes modifying Silva’s guide tube 56 to have a
polymer coating at its sealing surfaces and reasons that “[d]oing so would
provide a stick-slip free engagement with the water seat to minimize
accidental leakage prior to activation, and to minimize interference of the
fluid flow.” Final Act. at 8–9, 13 (citing Wotton 3:55–4:1). Based on our
understanding, the Examiner’s position is that modifying Silva’s guide tube
(seal) 56 to have a polymer coating at its sealing surfaces would aid in
detaching guide tube (seal) 56 from trigger (water) seat 62 and/or aid in
expelling trigger (water) seat 62. See Final Act. 8–9, 12–13; see also Ans. 5.
However, the Examiner does not direct us to any discussion in Silva to show
that there is a need to facilitate separating guide tube (seal) 56 from trigger
(water) seat 62 or that there is a need to facilitate expelling trigger (water)
seat 62. See Final Act. 5–9, 11–13; see also Ans. 5.
In fact, Silva discloses that assisting spring 55 “assist[s] movement”
of locator 50 from its unactuated position (i.e., guide tube 56 is coupled to
trigger seat 62) in Figure 1A to its actuated position (i.e., guide tube 56 is
detached from trigger seat 62 and trigger seat 62 is expelled) in Figure 1D.
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

6
See Silva ¶ 27, Figs. 1A, 1D. The Examiner fails to apprise us how “adding
the polymer (Teflon) coating [of Wotton] to the sealing surface between
[Silva’s guide tube] 56 and [trigger seat] 62” would make detachment
between guide tube (seal) 56 and trigger (water) seat 62 easier or would
result in quicker expulsion of trigger (water) seat 62. See Final Act. 8–9,
12–13; see also Ans. 5. Additionally, the Examiner does not direct us to any
discussion in Wotton that providing stick-slip free engagement between
guide tube (seal) 56 and trigger (water) seat 62 of Silva would “minimize
accidental leakage prior to activation.” See Final Act. 8–9, 12–13; see also
Ans. 5; Wotton 3:55–4:1.
As to the Examiner’s position that providing stick-slip free
engagement between guide tube (seal) 56 and trigger (water) seat 62 of Silva
would “minimize interference of the fluid flow” (see Final Act. 8–9, 13),
Wotton illustrates that glass bulb 43 is located above plug (water seat) 40
and O-ring (seal) 47 (see Wotton Fig 3) and discloses that “in the event that
the glass bulb shatters[,] the plug will be expelled quickly from the fluid
passage and present only the minimum interference to the flow of
extinguishant fluid.” Wotton 3:62–4:1. In contrast, Silva illustrates that
glass bulb 61 is located below guide tube (seal) 56 and trigger (water) seat
62. Silva, Figs. 1A, 1D. Given that Silva’s glass bulb 61 is located below,
not above, guide tube (seal) 56 and trigger (water) seat 62, we fail to see and
the Examiner fails to adequately explain how providing stick-slip free
engagement between guide tube 56 and trigger seat 62 would “minimize
interference of the fluid flow” of the extinguishing fluid. See Final Act. 8–9;
see also Appeal Br. 5–6. As correctly pointed out by Appellant, Silva’s
guide tube 56 “has a central opening through which fluid flows unhindered.”
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

7
Appeal Br. 5; see also Silva ¶¶ 26, 27 (Describing that “fluid flows through”
inner assembly 501, which includes guide tube 56, trigger seat 62, and
trigger 61), Fig. 1D.
For these reasons, the Examiner’s proposed reasoning for modifying
Silva’s guide tube to include a polymer coating at its sealing surfaces lacks
rational underpinnings. As such, the Examiner fails to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Silva,
Ondracek, and Wotton disclose the fire suppression sprinkler of claims 1 and
20.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 20, and claims 2, 3, 6–8, 12–14, 16, 19, and 21–23 depending therefrom
as unpatentable over Silva, Ondracek, and Wotton.

Rejection II – Obviousness over Ondracek and Wotton
As to independent claims 1 and 20, the Examiner finds that Ondracek
discloses a fire suppression sprinkler comprising a seal (inner tube 152)
supported within a housing and engaging a water seat (cap 156 or a
combination of cap 156 and split ring parts 190, 192). Final Act. 14, 17
(citing Ondracek Figs. 8–14). The Examiner acknowledges that Ondracek
does not disclose that “seal 152 is a polymer seal or includes polymer.” Id.
at 15, 18. The Examiner, however, finds that
Wotton teaches another fire sprinkler having a water seat 40
engaging a seal at 47 and 49. Wotton further teaches that a low
friction material like Teflon (Teflon is known by other names
including polytetrafluoroethylene or synthetic fluoropolymer)
can be coated onto a sealing surface to provide for a smooth
stick-slip free surface for quick expelling of the water seat when
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

8
the glass bulb shatter and present only minimum interference to
the flow of the extinguishing fluid (Col. 3, ln 55–Col. 4, ln 1).
Id. at 16, 18; see also Wotton Fig. 3; Ans. 9–10 (“Wotton discloses a
solution to improve a design criteria that is crucial to almost every sprinkler:
ensuring detachment of essential valving components so that water flows as
intended, without interference.”). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify the fire suppression sprinkler of Ondracek to
“incorporate the teachings of Wotton to provide a polymer coating at the
sealing surfaces at [inner tube] 152 [of Ondracek]” because “[d]oing so
would provide a stick-slip free engagement with the water seat to minimize
accidental leakage prior to activation, and to minimize interference of the
fluid flow, as taught by Wotton in Column 3, line 55 – Column 4, line 1.”
Final Act. 15, 18.
The Examiner proposes modifying Ondracek’s inner tube 152 to have
a polymer coating at its sealing surfaces and reasons that “[d]oing so would
provide a stick-slip free engagement with the water seat to minimize
accidental leakage prior to activation, and to minimize interference of the
fluid flow.” Final Act. at 15, 18 (citing Wotton 3:55–4:1). Based on our
understanding, the Examiner’s position is that modifying Ondracek’s inner
tube (seal) 152 to have a polymer coating at its sealing surfaces would aid in
detaching inner tube (seal) 152 from cap (water seat) 156 with or without the
incorporation of half rings 190, 192 and/or aid in expelling cap (water seat)
156 with or without the incorporation of half rings 190, 192. See Final Act.
14–15, 17–18; see also Ans. 9–10. However, the Examiner does not direct
us to any discussion in Ondracek to show that there is a need to facilitate
separating inner tube (seal) 152 from cap (water seat) 156 with or without
the incorporation of half rings 190, 192 or that there is a need to facilitate
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

9
expelling cap (water seat) 156 with or without the incorporation of half rings
190, 192. See Final Act. 14–15, 17–18; see also Ans. 9–10.
In fact, Ondracek discloses that upon actuation of the sprinkler, spring
168 forces inner tube 152 downwardly, ejecting structure 158 and cap 156
from the sprinkler head and moving downwardly until outwardly projecting
tabs 171 engage inner end 172 of the sprinkler head. Ondracek 6:32–37,
Fig. 9; see also id. at 7:1–9 (Describing that other than half rings 190, 192
being interposed between the lower end of inner tube 152 and cap 156, the
structure of Figures 13 and 14 is “otherwise the same as” that described in
Figures 8 through 11 and that as illustrated in Figure 14, half rings 190 and
192 separate when the sprinkler is actuated and are therefore ejected from
the sprinkler head along with cap 156 and thermally responsive structure
158), Figs. 8, 9, 13, 14. The Examiner fails to apprise us how “adding the
polymer (Teflon) coating [of Wotton] to the sealing surface between
[Ondracek’s inner tube] 152 and [cap] 156” would make detachment
between inner tube (seal) 152 and cap (water seat) 156 with or without the
incorporation of half rings 190, 192 easier or would result in quicker
expulsion of cap (water seat) 156 with or without the incorporation of half
rings 190, 192. See Final Act. 15, 18; see also Ans. 9. Additionally, the
Examiner does not direct us to any discussion in Wotton that providing
stick-slip free engagement between inner tube (seal) 152 and cap (water
seat) 156 of Ondracek would “minimize accidental leakage prior to
activation.” See Final Act. 15, 18; see also Ans. 9; Wotton 3:55–4:1.
As to the Examiner’s position that providing stick-slip free
engagement between inner tube (seal) 152 and cap (water seat) 156 of
Ondracek would “minimize interference of the fluid flow” (see Final Act.
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

10
15, 18), Wotton illustrates that glass bulb 43 is located above plug (water
seat) 40 and O-ring (seal) 47 (see Wotton Fig 3) and discloses that “in the
event that the glass bulb shatters[,] the plug will be expelled quickly from
the fluid passage and present only the minimum interference to the flow of
extinguishant fluid.” Wotton 3:62–4:1. In contrast, Ondracek illustrates that
thermally responsive structure (activation bulb) 158 is located below inner
tube (seal) 152 and cap (water seat) 156 with or without the incorporation of
half rings 190, 192. Ondracek, Figs. 8, 13. Given that Ondracek’s thermally
responsive structure (activation bulb) 158 is located below, not above, inner
tube (seal) 152 and cap (water seat) 156 with or without the incorporation of
half rings 190, 192, we fail to see and the Examiner fails to adequately
explain how providing stick-slip free engagement between inner tube (seal)
152 and cap (water seat) 156 with or without the incorporation of half rings
190, 192 would “minimize interference of the fluid flow” of the
extinguishing fluid. See Final Act. 15, 18; see also Ans. 9–10; Appeal Br.
11–12. As correctly pointed out by Appellant, Ondracek’s inner tube 152
“has a central opening through which fluid flows unhindered.” Appeal Br.
11; see also Ondracek 6:48–51 (Describing that water “follows an
unobstructed path” between opening 142 in installation head 138 through
inner tube 152 and toward deflector 160 at the outer end of sprinkler head
136), Fig. 9. Additionally, in the description of Figures 13 and 14, Ondracek
discloses that inner tube 152 does not project beyond passage 154 in the
sprinkler head when the sprinkler is actuated, “thereby avoiding interference
with the flow of water” through inner tube 152 toward deflector 168.
Ondracek 7:9–13 (emphasis added), Figs. 13, 14.
Appeal 2019-003355
Application 14/376,208

11
For these reasons, the Examiner’s proposed reasoning for modifying
Ondracek’s inner tube to include a polymer coating at its sealing surfaces
lacks rational underpinnings. As such, the Examiner fails to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Ondracek and
Wotton disclose the fire suppression sprinkler of claims 1 and 20.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 20, and claims 2, 3, 6–8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, and 22 depending therefrom
as unpatentable over Ondracek and Wotton.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–8, 12–
14, 16, and 19–
23
103(a)   Silva,
Ondracek,
and Wotton
1–3, 6–8, 12–
14, 16, and
19–23
1–3, 6–8, 12,
13, 16, and 19–
22
103(a) Ondracek
and Wotton
1–3, 6–8, 12,
13, 16, and
19–22
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–8, 12–
14, 16, and
19–23

REVERSED