Chris Orritt et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 22, 2019

13464937 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 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.
13/464,937 05/04/2012 CHRIS ORRITT ATG.NPPA.2012-03 3731
141329 7590 07/22/2019
Evoqua Water Technologies LLC
Intellectual Property Department
10 Technology Drive
Lowell, MA 01851
EXAMINER
SKROUPA, JOSHUA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3678
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2019 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):
CKent@LALaw.com
docketing@LALaw.com
intellectualproperty@evoqua.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRIS ORRITT and RICHARD JOSHI
____________

Appeal 2019-0015131
Application 13/464,9372
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the non-final rejection
of claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, and 13–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our Decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed June 18,
2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 10, 2018), the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 10, 2018), and the Non-Final Office Action
(“Non-Final Act.,” mailed Jan. 18, 2018).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ATG R&D Limited.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001513
Application 13/464,937

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]he present invention relates
generally to UV water treatment systems and specifically to such systems
that use UV lamps disposed within quartz sleeves, the assemblies being
mounted in reactors.” Spec. 2, ll. 9–11.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 3, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An improved clamp ring system comprising:
a clamp ring having a wedge shaped seal face disposed at
an angle of 28.4 degrees, and removably attached to a reactor
with a clamp ring flange.
Appeal Br. (Claims App.) 1.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kauling3 in view of Wang.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kauling in view of Wang and Shinn.5
DISCUSSION
As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of each of the independent claims over either Kauling in view of
Wang or Kauling in view of Wang and Shinn.

3 Kauling et al., US 2008/0315117 A1, pub. Dec. 25, 2008.
4 Wang, US 2007/0241288 A1, pub. Oct. 18, 2007.
5 Shinn, US 4,455,040, iss. June 19, 1984.
Appeal 2019-001513
Application 13/464,937

3
Kauling in view of Wang
Each independent claim requires a clamp ring with a wedge shaped
seal face disposed at an angle of 28.4 degrees. The Examiner relies on
Wang as teaching a wedge shaped seal face and determines that the specific
angle of the seal face is a result-effective variable that could be routinely
optimized. Non-Final Act. 6–7.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that
the angle of the seal face is a result-effective variable. See Appeal Br. 4–6.
As an initial matter, we find that Wang does not expressly disclose a clamp
ring with a wedge shaped seal face. The Examiner identifies element 24 as a
wedge shaped seal face. Non-Final Act. 6. However, Wang identifies
element 24 as “an annular curved groove” that is designed to “partially
receive the O-ring 3.” Wang ¶ 24. This description suggests that the groove
is annular, i.e., ring shaped, and also curved on its face. If that is the case,
then the seal face is not wedge shaped as the Examiner proposes, and thus
the Examiner has not identified any wedge shaped seal face in the art relied
upon in this rejection.
And even if we were to consider the seal face in Wang to be wedge
shaped, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that
the particular angle of the seal face is a result-effective variable. The
Examiner finds that “Wang teaches wedge shaped seal structures aid in
achieving the result of preventing fluid leakage or permeation and providing
excellent water-tightness efficiency,” and thus, “the angle of the wedge
shaped seal face is a result-effective variable.” Ans. 5. However, Wang
only discloses that the particular sealing arrangement of an annular curved
groove and O-ring provide “excellent water-tightness efficiency” as
Appeal 2019-001513
Application 13/464,937

4
compared to the prior art use of rubber sealant. See Wang ¶¶ 5, 7, 14, 25.
Wang does not disclose or suggest that the particular shape of the groove 24
may be altered to change the effectiveness of the seal. Thus, although one
“could vary the angle of the clamping force vector,” it is mere speculation
on the Examiner’s part that doing so would alter the effectiveness of the seal
in Wang or the combination of Kauling and Wang. See Ans. 5–6.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of independent claims 1, 3, and 13 over Kauling in view of Wang.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 13 on this
ground. We also do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims on this
ground for the same reasons.
Kauling in view of Wang and Shinn
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not
provided a sufficient reason to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have relied upon “Shinn to arrive at the claimed subject matter.”
Reply Br. 4.
In this rejection, the Examiner does not rely on optimization to cure
the deficiency in the combination of Kauling and Wang regarding the
claimed seal face angle. Rather, the Examiner relies on a further reference,
Shinn, and determines that it would have been obvious to modify the
combination of Kauling and Wang such that the seal face angle is “28.4
degrees, as taught in Shinn, in order to overcome the problems of the prior
art in maintaining proper seating of the seal.” Non-Final Act. 15.
Shinn discloses “seals for sealing between wellhead apparatus for
withstanding pressures in the range to 30,000 psi.” Shinn col. 1, ll. 5–8.
Shinn discloses a sealing assembly including a seal ring 100 and a support
Appeal 2019-001513
Application 13/464,937

5
ring 110. Id. at col. 6, ll. 1–2. Shinn discloses that the seal ring includes an
angle A that is approximately 28 degrees in a prestressed state. Id. at col. 6,
ll. 21–33. Shin discloses that the support ring has a frustoconical surface
facing the seal ring. Id. at col. 6, ll. 34–40. Shinn discloses that “[i]n the
assembled position . . . the bearing surfaces of the seal ring, will conform to
the corresponding mating surfaces on the tubing hanger and the support ring,
which form a 30° angle with the vertical plane.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 29–45.
Based on this disclosure in Shinn, we agree with Appellants that one
of ordinary skill would not have had a reason to modify Kauling or Wang to
include a seal face on a clamp ring to include a 28.4 degree angle, as
proposed by the Examiner. See Reply Br. 4–5. Although Shinn discloses a
seal ring that includes an approximately 28 degree angle, Shinn discloses
that this angle is deformed to be 30 degrees when sealed in order to conform
with the support ring 110. We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary
skill in the art would consider the 30 degree face of the support ring to
correspond to the claimed clamp ring seal face and Wang’s annular curved
groove 24. Thus, at best, Shinn teaches a seal, not a seal face, that has a 28
degree angle. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Shinn’s
seal face has an angle of 30 degrees and that a 30 degree angle is achieved in
the final seal, and the Examiner does not adequately explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would disregard this figure, i.e., the use of a 30
degree angle, and choose to instead incorporate an approximately 28 degree
seal face into the proposed combination of Kauling and Wang.
For this reason, we are persuaded of error in the rejection over
Kauling, Wang, and Shinn. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, and 13–15 here.
Appeal 2019-001513
Application 13/464,937

6
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, and 13–15.

REVERSED