The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2021

2020002813 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 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.
15/368,479 12/02/2016 Robert James Schumann 16-1607-US-NP (BOE.371) 7850
120792 7590 01/21/2021
Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
Boeing Customer Number
520 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
NICHOLS II, ROBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2021 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):
docketing@khpatent.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
veronica@khpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT JAMES SCHUMANN and
JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER HEATH
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20. See
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an apparatus for controlled application of a
viscous fluid. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A hand-held apparatus for application of a viscous fluid,
comprising:
a housing;
an applicator coupling disposed on the housing and
configured to releasably couple to an applicator that contains a
viscous fluid, wherein the applicator for the viscous fluid
includes a syringe barrel and a dispensing tip;
a gas supply coupling disposed on or within the housing,
the gas supply coupling being configured to receive a
pressurized gas from a gas supply;
a valve disposed between and in fluid communication
with both the gas supply coupling and the applicator coupling,
having a first open position in which a vent outlet is closed and
the valve is configured so that the valve can be gradually and
controllably opened to thereby adjustably control the delivery
of the pressurized gas from a valve inlet to the applicator
coupling, and a second closed position in which the valve inlet
is closed and the vent outlet is open, such that when the valve is
in the closed position the pressurized gas delivered to the
applicator coupling is vented through the vent outlet; and
a depressable trigger member operatively coupled with
the valve, the depressable trigger member being configured to
permit a user to adjustably depress the depressable trigger
member to gradually and controllably open the valve and
thereby to use the pressurized gas delivered to the applicator via
the applicator coupling to controllably dispense the viscous
fluid from the applicator, wherein ceasing to depress the
depressable trigger member causes the valve to move to the
closed position in which the valve inlet is closed and the vent
outlet is open such that pressurized gas delivered to the
applicator coupling is vented through the vent outlet, to thereby
immediately discontinue dispense of viscous fluid from the
applicator.
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479

3
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Collar US 3,938,709 Feb. 17, 1976
Wills US 3,983,947 Oct. 5, 1976
Anderson US 5,181,636 Jan. 26, 1993
Hsich US 5,224,629 July 6, 1993
Cooper Industries, Chico Speed Seal Compound, 10–11, May 23, 2016
REJECTIONS2
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–3, 9, 17, 19 102(a)(1) Wills
1, 2, 9, 10 102(a)(1) Anderson
5, 6 103 Wills, Hsieh
11, 13 103 Wills, Collar
14 103 Wills, Collar, Hsieh
20 103 Wills, Cooper Industries
OPINION
Claims 1–3, 9, 17, and 19: Rejected as Anticipated by Wills
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a pressurized-gas operated hand-held
apparatus for application of a viscous fluid—e.g., caulking or sealant—and
recites, inter alia:
(1) “an applicator coupling disposed on the housing and
configured to releasably couple to an applicator that contains a
viscous fluid”;
(2) a valve in fluid communication with the gas supply and the
applicator coupling and “having a first open position in which a
vent outlet is closed and the valve is configured so that the valve
can be gradually and controllably opened to thereby adjustably
control the delivery of the pressurized gas from a valve inlet to

2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 8–10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b). Ans. 9.
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479

4
the applicator coupling, and a second closed position in which
the valve inlet is closed and [a] vent outlet is open”; and
(3) “a depressable [sic] trigger member . . . configured to permit
a user to adjustably depress the depressable trigger member to
gradually and controllably open the valve and thereby to use the
pressurized gas . . . to controllably dispense the viscous fluid.”
Appeal Br. 51 (Claims App.). Independent claim 17 is drawn to a method of
applying a viscous fluid that uses an apparatus identical in all relevant
respects with that recited in claim 1. Id. at 54–55. Claims 2, 3, and 9
depend from claim 1, and claim 19 depends from claim 17. Id. at 51–52, 55.
The Examiner finds that Wills discloses the apparatus recited in claim 1,
including the claimed applicator coupling, valve, and trigger member. Final
Act. 3–4 (citing Wills 3:16–20, 30–34, 57–61, 5:20–22, 5:39–6:15, 6:9–14,
58–62, Figs. 1–3).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that “the mechanical construction of the
Wills valve itself prevents it from being ‘gradually and controllable opened,’
nor does depressing the Wills trigger ‘gradually and controllably open the
valve,’ as required by the claims.” Appellant asserts that “the ball poppet-
type valve as used by Wills . . . are exceedingly disadvantageous for
metering a flow.” Appeal Br. 37–38. Appellant cites to two prior art
references that, according to Appellant, support this assertion. The first
reference states that the use of the “radiused ball type plug which has been
used by many valve manufacturers” is limited to those situations that take
advantage of its “quick opening characteristics.” Id. at 38 (quoting U.S.
Patent No. 4,721,284, 1:52–58). The second reference states that adequate
fluid flow control “can not [sic] be achieved with ball poppet valves
according to the prior art,” because “they enable a relatively large flow when
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479

5
the ball poppet is lifted even a small amount off the valve aperture.” Id.
(quoting U.S. Pat. No. 7,992, 838, 1:19–39).
The Examiner disputes Appellant’s characterization of Wills.
According to the Examiner,
The Wills depressable trigger member 66 is configured to
permit a user to adjustably depress the depressable trigger
member 66 to gradually and controllably open the valve 70/46[]
from the applicator (as claimed), by a user controllably
depressing the trigger member 66, the valve 70/46 is able to
controllably open (valve 70/46 opening against the gas pressure
applied against the member 46 (which biases it against seat 48)
via conduit 32, where the more pressure applied to trigger 66,
the valve portion 46 opens further from seat 48 allowing more
gas pressure therepast to be applied to the applicator coupling
28, into recess 112 for dispensing, and simultaneously, less air
is vented, via the portions 86, 82 moving toward a sealed
position allowing less gas to be vented; see fig. 3).
Ans. 10 (emphasis added). In the Reply Brief, Appellant responds that the
Examiner’s analysis “ignor[es] the portion of the claim which recites that a
user can adjustably depress the trigger member to ‘gradually and
controllably open the valve . . . to controllably dispense the viscous fluid
from the applicator.’” Reply Br. 5.
Claim 1 requires a valve that is configured so that gradually and
controllably “open[ing]” the valve “thereby” controls the delivery of
pressurized gas from the valve inlet to the applicator coupling. Appeal Br.
51 (Claims app.).
We agree with the Examiner that a user can depress Wills’ trigger 66
gradually and controllably. Indeed, Wills’ invention depends on the ability
of a user to do so. For example, Wills discloses that “as the trigger is further
depressed, ever larger cross-sectional areas in the throttle section 86 are
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479

6
present at the throttle opening 52, thereby correspondingly decreasing the
cross-sectional area available for working fluid to flow out through that
annular orifice to atmosphere.” Wills 5:65–6:2. It is also apparent that
gradually and controllably depressing the trigger gradually and controllably
increases the distance between ball 46 and its seat 48, because as throttle
section 86 advances with increasing trigger pressure, so too does ball 46.
See Wills Fig. 3.
But the Examiner’s finding that opening “valve portion 46 . . . further
from seat 48 allow[s] more gas pressure therepast to be applied to the
applicator coupling 28” (Ans. 10) does not follow. According to Wills,
“[w]hen the valve is . . . just ‘cracked,’”—i.e., when ball 46 is moved
slightly away from seat 48—“full line pressure” flows past the ball into
chamber 50. Wills 5:42–45. That is, “throat 50 is fully pressurized” when
“ball 46 is off its seat.” Id. at 5:5–7. Thus, the amount of pressurized gas
applied to applicator coupling 28 does not depend directly on the distance
between ball 46 and ball seat 48, but rather on the extent to which gradually
depressing trigger 66 causes tapered throttling section 86 to advance towards
throttle section seat 52. As tapered throttle section 86 advances towards
throttle section seat 52, the amount of pressurized gas allowed to be
exhausted through relief opening 56 is decreased, thus increasing the amount
of pressurized gas sent to recess 112 to move piston 98 to dispense viscous
fluid. Id. at 5:39–6:14. Because we disagree with the Examiner’s analysis
of Wills on which this rejection is based, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, 9, 17, and 19 as anticipated by Wills.3

3 We note that while the pressurized gas directed from the valve inlet to the
applicator coupling is not directly related to the position of ball 46 with
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479

7
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10: Rejected as Anticipated by Anderson
The Examiner finds that Anderson discloses the apparatus recited in
claim 1, including the claimed applicator coupling, valve, and trigger
member. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Anderson 4:64–5:14, 5:35–41, 10:1–7,
10:67–11:6, 11:35–59, Figs. 1, 4, 7). The Examiner specifically finds that
[A] user may control the opening amount of the valve 212 (via
the amount of opening between ball 226 and seat of insert 240)
via the amount of pressure on the trigger 215 (see fig. 4).
Accordingly, the flow may be varied via the user applied
pressure to the trigger which may be gradual or controlled.
Id. at 11.
Among other arguments, Appellant challenges this finding.
According to Appellant:
When the trigger 215 is completely released, the valve is
completely closed. Ball 226 of the first ball and poppet valve is
seated against valve seat 249, and no pressurized gas enters the
valve assembly. In this position, no caulk is dispensed.
When the trigger 215 is partially depressed, but not fully
depressed, ball 225 is intermediate valve seat 249 and valve
seat 250. In this configuration, which includes every position of
trigger 215 between fully released and fully depressed,
pressurized gas can flow into the valve, around ball 226, past
valve seat 250, and out exhaust opening 265 by way of
passageway 253 . . . .

respect to seat, it is indirectly related. That is, in Wills’ invention, narrowing
the gap between throttling section 86 and throttle section seat 52 can only be
achieved by increasing the gap between ball 46 and seat 48, i.e., by further
“opening” the valve. The Examiner may wish to consider whether this
indirect relationship between the extent the valve is opened and the delivery
of pressurized gas to the applicator coupling via the tapered throttling
section and the throttle section seat is sufficient to satisfy the claim
language.
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479

8
In this intermediate position, no caulk can be dispensed
because no pressure is allowed to build up.
Finally, when trigger 216 is fully depressed, ball 226 is
urged against valve seat 250, and pressurized gas can flow
through the valve into passage 216, to the space behind piston
200 in chamber 220, and so urge the piston forward, dispensing
an increment of caulk at a steady rate.
Appeal Br. 42–43. In response, the Examiner reiterates that “where the
more pressure applied to trigger 215, the valve portion 249 opens further
from seat 249 allowing more gas pressure therepast to be applied to the
applicator coupling 36/61, via chamber 220 for dispensing.” Ans. 11.
We disagree with the Examiner’s analysis of Anderson. As Appellant
notes, if the trigger is partially depressed and ball 226 is between seat 249
and seat 250, pressurized gas from supply 206 would be able to vent to the
atmosphere via axial bore 246, second passage 253, forward portion 259 of
actuating chamber 220, and exhaust opening 265. See Anderson, Figs. 4, 7.
Thus, no gas pressure would be applied to actuating piston 200 via actuating
chamber 220 to dispense viscous fluids. Accordingly, we disagree with the
Examiner that Anderson teaches a valve that “can be gradually and
controllably opened to thereby adjustably control the delivery of the
pressurized gas from a valve inlet to the applicator coupling.” For this
reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well claims
2, 9, and 10, which depend from claim 1, as anticipated by Anderson.
Remaining Rejections
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 13 as unpatentable over
Wills and Collar; claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Wills and Hsich; claim
14 as unpatentable over Wills, Collar, and Hsich; and claim 20 as
unpatentable over Wills and Cooper Industries rely on the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-002813
Application 15/368,479

9
finding that Wills discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and
17. Final Act. 7–9. As discussed above, however, we are not persuaded that
Wills discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 17. Further, none of the
additional references is relied upon to cure the noted deficiencies in Wills.
Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 9, 17,
19
102(a)(1) Wills 1–3, 9, 17,
19
1, 2, 9, 10 102(a)(1) Anderson 1, 2, 9, 10
5, 6 103 Wills, Hsieh 5, 6
11, 13 103 Wills, Collar 11, 13
14 103 Wills, Collar,
Hsieh
14
20 103 Wills, Cooper,
Industries
20
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5, 6, 9–
11, 13, 14,
17, 19, 20

REVERSED