Schuster, Michael J. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 28, 2019

15252396 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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. 15/252,396 08/31/2016 Michael J. Schuster 171401-1094 9309 24504 7590 10/28/2019 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP 3200 WINDY HILL ROAD, SE SUITE 1600E ATLANTA, GA 30339 EXAMINER GARDNER, NICOLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/28/2019 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): docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com ozzie.liggins@tkhr.com uspatents@tkhr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL J. SCHUSTER and LARRY L. SCHNEIDER ____________________ Appeal 2019-001771 Application 15/252,396 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, 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, 5, 7–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–25. Final Act. 3–8. 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 Danco, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-001771 Application 15/252,396 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, 21, and 22 depend from claim 1. Claims 13, 15, 16, 23, and 24 depend from claim 11. Claims 19, 20, and 25 depend from claim 17. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A lockable toilet fill valve, comprising: a toilet fill valve comprising a float/arm assembly comprising a float and an arm, the toilet fill valve configured to be closed in response to the float/arm assembly being in a first position, and the toilet fill valve configured to be open in response to the float/arm assembly being in a second position; and a valve lock comprising a cam portion with a push/pull cam, the valve lock configured to engage in an unlock position and a lock position, the valve lock configured to restrict the float/arm assembly in the first position when in the locked position and allow movement of the float/arm assembly when in the unlocked position. REJECTION Claims 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Royalty (US 5,327,931, issued July 12, 1994). OPINION Claim 1 recites “a valve lock comprising a cam portion with a push/pull cam.” Claim 17 recites “a valve lock . . . , wherein the valve lock comprises a cam portion including a push/pull cam.” Claim 11 recites a method including steps of “moving the valve lock into the lock position by pushing a cam portion of the valve lock . . . ; [and] moving the valve lock into the unlock position by pulling the cam portion.” Appeal 2019-001771 Application 15/252,396 3 The Examiner finds that Royalty teaches each element of the claims, including the “push/pull cam” in claims 1 and 17, as well as the corresponding operation in claim 11. Final Act. 3, 5, 6. The Examiner finds that Royalty’s latch 36, which includes locking arm 94 and control arm 96, corresponds to the recited “push/pull cam.” Id. at 3. The Examiner explains that “‘cam’ is defined by Merriam-Webster as ‘a rotating or sliding piece . . . in a mechanical linkage used especially in transforming rotary motion into linear motion or vice versa.’” Id. The Examiner concludes that, “therefore the rotating motion of the push/pull to allow or disrupt the linear motion of the arm 24 [in Royalty] reads on this definition of a cam.” Id.; see also Ans. 7. Appellant responds that “[t]he bendable wire that forms latch 36 including the control arm 96 is rotated instead of being a ‘push’ or ‘pull’ cam, as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 9, 11 (discussing same for claims 11 and 17, respectively). Accordingly, the dispute concerns what is required by the term “push/pull cam.” The plain language of the term “push/pull cam” requires a cam susceptible of being pushed and pulled (i.e., translated axially) to actuate a mechanism, as opposed to one that is rotated to actuate a mechanism. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification as discussed below. Figures 31–34 of Appellant’s Specification are reproduced below. Appeal 2019-001771 Application 15/252,396 4 Figures 31–34 illustrate “various views of a push/pull cam locking mechanism in a toilet fill valve.” Spec. ¶ 11. Figures 31 and 33 illustrate side and top views, respectively, of an unlocked position for cam 233. Figures 32 and 34 illustrate side and top views, respectively, of a locked position for cam 233. Appeal 2019-001771 Application 15/252,396 5 The only embodiment identified in the Specification as having a push/pull cam is that shown in Figures 31–34 above, where “push/pull cam 233” is pulled out of cover 116 to unlock float/arm assembly 100, 103, and then pressed into the cover to lock the assembly in a closed state. Spec. ¶¶ 47–50 (emphasis added). The structure associated with the push/pull actuation is a change in diameter along the axial extent of push/pull cam 233, which includes rod 236 and cam portion 239 having a larger diameter than rod 236. Id. ¶ 47. Depending on how push/pull cam 233 is displaced axially, arm 103 engages either rod 236 (Figures 31 and 33) or enlarged diameter cam portion 239 (Figures 32 and 34). Based on our interpretation of “push/pull cam,” which requires push/pull actuation, rather than rotational actuation, we agree with Appellant that Royalty does not teach the recited “push/pull cam.” Figures 1, 4, and 5 of Royalty are reproduced below. Appeal 2019-001771 Application 15/252,396 6 Figure 1 illustrates Royalty’s “flush valve leakage prevention and detection device.” Royalty 4:10. Figure 4 illustrates “the latch [from Figure 1] in a locked position.” Id. at 4:19–20. Figure 5 illustrates “the latch [from Figure 1] in an unlocked position.” Id. at 4:22–23. Royalty describes flush valve leakage prevention and detection device 10 maintaining float arm 24 connected to water inlet valve assembly 12 in a raised position to prevent opening of the valve assembly when the water level in toilet tank 16 drops due to leakage between flush cycles. Id. at 2:28–34, 4:27–43. The device 10 includes latch 36 for locking float arm 24 in a raised position. Id. at 4:54–64. Latch 36 includes a rod bent into sections 94, 96, 98, 100 so that the latch may be rotatably or pivotably mounted on hood 34 coupled to the water inlet valve assembly 12. Id. at 6:49–60, Fig. 1. When the toilet is flushed, locking arm section 94 of latch 36 rotates or pivots downwardly, releasing or unlocking float arm 24. Id. at 7:39–49. Although Royalty may disclose a rotatable cam, the Examiner has failed to establish sufficiently that Royalty discloses a “push/pull cam” as required by the claims. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 7– 11, 13, 15–17, and 19–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Royalty. Appeal 2019-001771 Application 15/252,396 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–25 102(b) Royalty 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–25 REVERSED