Russell Wasson

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021005135 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 15/932,128 02/07/2018 Russell D. Wasson 8388 5761 77083 7590 03/01/2022 Paul M. Denk PATENT LAW OFFICE, LC 120 S. CENTRAL AVE STE 1600 St. Louis, MO 63105 EXAMINER SCHOMMER, DYLAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3725 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RUSSELL D. WASSON ____________ Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Nov. 13, 2020, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 8-10.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Russell D. Wasson and HydroPro, Inc. are identified as the real parties in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed May 18, 2021, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 1-7 are canceled. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus for “hydroforming of hollow metal cylinders.” Spec. 5, l. 3. Claim 10, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 10. An apparatus for radially expanding a cylinder by hydroforming the same utilizing hydraulic pressure, comprising: a metal cylinder to be expanded; a mandrel provided for insertion into said metal cylinder in preparation for performance of the hydroforming function; an elastic sleeve provided upon the mandrel at least along a portion of its length, and said elastic sleeve arranged in contiguity with the interior of the cylinder to be hydroformed; said mandrel having an internal approximate axial pathway through which hydraulic fluids under pressure may insert during hydroforming, said mandrel having at least one approximate radial pathway extending from its axial pathway to the surface of the mandrel, and said pathway providing the means for introducing a pressurized fluid into the area between the mandrel and its elastic sleeve to expand the elastic sleeve against the interior of the cylinder being hydroformed interiorly thereof; seals provided between the elastic sleeve and the surface of the mandrel to seal in pressurized fluids during hydroforming, said seals include a series of O-rings provided upon said mandrel and the interior of said elastic sleeve to contain the pressurized fluids therein during performance of a hydroforming function, said mandrel having a pair of spaced apart grooves and into which one of the series of O-rings fits within an annular groove during assembly; Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 3 said elastic sleeve slides onto said mandrel and contacts said O-rings operatively associated with said mandrel to form a hydraulic fluid pressure expansion zone between said elastic sleeve, and the exterior of said mandrel, to obtain expansion of the elastic sleeve when hydroforming a metal cylinder into an expanded shape; said elastic sleeve extends over a substantial length of said mandrel when assembled for a hydroforming operation; said seal further including a bushing and retaining washer and threaded nut provided at each end of the elastic sleeve, said elastic sleeve having reduced diameter at each end of said elastic sleeve, and said bushings having portions that slide onto said reduced diameters of said elastic sleeve, each bushing at the portion that slides onto the elastic sleeve having an end that is beveled, and each reduced diameter end of the elastic sleeve having a corresponding beveled surface, and when said retaining washer and threaded nut secure said bushing to its respective end of the elastic sleeve also forms an interlocking mating surface between the bushing and the proximate end of the elastic sleeve, and when said retaining washers and threaded nuts are applied to each end of the mandrel they hold these bushings in place against the reduced diameter ends of the elastic sleeve to assure retention of the pressurized hydraulic fluids during performance of a hydroforming operation; said mandrel at one end having an adapter to which a high pressure fluid source may connect therewith for introducing pressurized fluids into the mandrel in preparation for the performance of hydroforming process upon the associated metal cylinder, said adaptor being threadedly engaged to the proximate mandrel and said mandrel having a recessed section for accommodating a backup ring and a O-ring therein, said backup ring provided between the end of the mandrel and within the adapter to maintain a seal of the pressurized fluid as it enters into the mandrel during performance of a hydroforming function, and said further O-ring also provided in the recessed section to form the seal between the adapter and the approximate end of the mandrel in cooperating with the adaptor leaning against said associated threaded nut, retaining washer and bushing and against its Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 4 backup ring to assure fluid sealing at that position where the high pressure fluid source connects with the adapter to provide performance of a hydroforming function. Supplemental Appeal Brief (filed June 11, 2021), Claims App. REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. II. The Examiner rejects claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amen,3 Scott,4 Tedder,5 Parker Hannifin,6 and Wasson.7 ANALYSIS Rejection I Appellant does not address the indefiniteness rejection of claims 8-10. See Appeal Br. 8-11; Final Act. 4-5. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of these claims. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection). 3 Amen, US 4,195,390, issued Apr. 1, 1980. 4 Scott et al., CA 1 152 876 A, published Aug. 30, 1983. 5 Tedder, US 4,724,693, issued Feb. 16, 1988. 6 “Gask-O-Seal and Integral Seal Design Handbook,” Parker Hannifin Corporation, p.11. 7 Wasson et al., US 5,901,594, issued May 11, 1999. Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 5 Rejection II Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims 8 and 9 apart from claim 10. See Appeal Br. 9-11. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select claim 10 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 8 and 9 standing or falling with claim 10. Appellant argues that “Amen does lack many of the elements of the claimed tooling” such as “bushings, washers, nuts, backup ring, at one end, incorporating an adapter, which secures onto the end of the mandrel, through the use of the various backup rings, O-rings, all that fit within the recessed section of the mandrel.” Appeal Br. 9. Furthermore, Appellant contends that although Tedder discloses end cap 60 and grooves 64, 66, Tedder “do[es] not even identify as whether there are any O-rings for those grooves.” Id. at 10. Appellant further asserts that Wasson’s structure is different from the claimed apparatus for hydroforming a cylinder and that the Examiner does not adequately explain how the disclosure of Parker Hannifin is even relevant to the rejection. Id. Thus, Appellant concludes that “[n]o one has shown the type of structure as . . . [claimed] in constructing a mandrel having the specific elastic sleeve, with the other various components to prevent leakage, as . . . [per] claim 10.” Id. at 11. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because “[n]onobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. [Each reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 6 Examiner’s Answer (dated Aug. 10, 2021, hereinafter “Ans.”) 4 (“Applicant has made arguments rejecting the individual references for not having features which are claimed without considering the combination of the references.”). In this case, the Examiner finds that Amen discloses most of the limitations of independent claim 10 but fails to disclose the following limitations: (1) “a series of O-rings, provided upon said mandrel and the interior of said elastic sleeve . . . said mandrel having a pair of spaced apart grooves and into which one of the series of O-rings fits within an annular groove during assembly”; (2) “a bushing and retaining washer and threaded nut provided at each end of the elastic sleeve”; and (3) a “mandrel having a recessed section for accommodating [both] a backup ring and a[n] O-ring therein.” See Final Act. 8-10 (citing Amen, col. 4, ll. 44-46, 48-49, col. 5, ll. 47-54, Figs. 1-3, 6). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that: (1) Parker Hannifin discloses providing a secondary groove seal in addition to a primary seal in “zero leak” applications (see Final Act. 8 (citing Parker Hannifin, page 11, “Tandem or Redundancy Seal”)); (2) Wasson discloses a mandrel 11 having “a recessed section for accommodating two O-ring seals [61, 62]” at an end 60 of mandrel 11 (see Final Act 9 (citing Wasson, Fig. 2)); (3) Scott discloses elastic sleeve 36 (bladder) located over mandrel 14 having O-rings 26 located in grooves 22 on mandrel 11 between Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 7 elastic sleeve 36 (bladder) and mandrel 14 (see Final Act. 9 (citing Scott, Fig. 1)); and (4) Tedder discloses mandrel 20 having elastic sleeve 40 with reduced diameter sections at the ends thereof retained by bushing 60, washer “C”, and nut 70 (see Final Act. 10 (citing Tedder, Fig. 1), 12 (Examiner annotated Figure 1 of Tedder)). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (1) to modify Amen to provide “a secondary redundant O-ring seal parallel,” as taught by Parker Hannifin, to the primary back-up seal of Amen, “in order to reduce the chance of a leak in the interface between the mandrel and its adapter” (see Final Act. 8; Amen, Fig. 3, 4:48-60 (“An O-ring at the end of the tie rod [14] can be used to seal the threaded portion.”)); (2) to provide a recessed section, as taught by Wasson, to contain the O-rings of Amen, as modified by Parker Hannifin, in order “to locate the O-rings on the mandrel body during assembly as well as to prevent unnecessary travel of the O-rings during pressurized operation” (see Final Act. 9); (3) to provide grooves with O-rings inserted therein, as taught by Scott, on the mandrel of Amen, as modified by Parker Hannifin and Wasson, in order to “provide sealing action of the hydraulic fluid between the elastic sleeve and the mandrel” and to “allow the O-rings to be located on the mandrel which would restrict the O- rings from shifting across the face of the mandrel during a hydroforming process” (see Final Act. 9-10); and Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 8 (4) to substitute end caps 15, 16 of Amen, as modified by Parker Hannifin, Wasson, and Scott, with Tedder’s bushing 60, washer “C”, and nut 70 assembly, as “functional equivalents performing the same purpose of ensuring retention of the pressurized fluid during performance of a hydroforming operation” (see Final Act. 10).8 As such, the Examiner’s modifications represent an improvement to Amen’s hydroforming device in the same manner as taught by each of Parker Hannifin, Wasson, Scott, and Tedder to lead to a predictable result, and the modification is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in this art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Appellant does not adequately argue the Examiner’s findings and reasoning to combine the teachings of Amen, Parker Hannifin, Wasson, Scott, and Tedder. In particular, Appellant’s argument that “claim 10, and its dependent claims . . . distinguish the claimed subject matter over the cited prior art” addresses the Examiner’s reasoning in a conclusory manner, and, thus, ignores and fails to point out the error in the rationale provided by the Examiner discussed supra. See Appeal Br. 11. 8 We do not consider the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection of utility claims to be significant. See, e.g., In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961). Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 9 Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. See Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner is correct that the claims do not require “bushing/end cap having O-rings which are provided inside of the bushing/end cap whilst also on the outside surface of the elastic sleeve” such that “the elastic sleeve contains grooves at it ends.” See id.; see also Appeal Br. 11. Lastly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Amen’s elastic sleeve 13 has a reduced diameter 13a, 13b at each end, and, thus, discloses “the elastic sleeve as having reduced diameter [16(a), 16(b)] at each end of said elastic sleeve.” See Final Act. 7; Reply Brief (filed Aug. 23, 2021, hereinafter “Reply Br.”) 1. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Amen, Scott, Tedder, Parker Hannifin, and Wasson. Claims 9 and 10 fall with claim 8. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8-10 112(b) Indefiniteness 8-10 8-10 103 Amen, Scott, Parker Hannifin, Wasson 8-10 Overall outcome 8-10 Appeal 2021-005135 Application 15/932,128 10 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