Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

11467348 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

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.
11/467,348 08/25/2006 Herbert G. Anderson P161P0017US 3427
49458 7590 09/30/2014
DON W. BULSON (PARK)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE / 19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
DRIGGERS, GWENDOLYN YVONNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2014 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 HERBERT G. ANDERSON,
JEFFRY BEIER, and HIRALAL V. PATEL
____________________

Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, JENNIFER S. BISK, and RAMA G. ELLURU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by Appellants under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, and 17 of Application No.
11/467,348 (“the ’348 Applicant”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.1
A. References Relied on by the Examiner
Gold 3,866,958 Feb. 18, 1975
Esrock 5,927,975 July 27, 1999
Happel 7,252,293 Aug. 7, 2007
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Esrock. Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Esrock and Gold. Ans. 5–6.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Esrock and Happel. Ans. 6–8.
C. The Invention
The invention disclosed in the ’348 Application is characterized as
providing “a direct port connection for connecting a tube to a port in a body
without the use of an adapter fitting.” Spec. 2. Figure 2 of the ’348

1 In this opinion, we make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed
August 6, 2010 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer filed October 27, 2010
(“Ans.”), and the Appellants’ Reply Brief filed December 22, 2010 (“Reply
Br.”).

Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

3
Application is reproduced below and illustrates an embodiment according to
the invention:

As shown in Figure 2 above, direct port connection 110 includes port
body 115 having bore 120 forming a port. Spec. 4. Annular male nut 145 is
received in bore 120. Id. at 4-5. Tube 150 extends through the male nut. Id.
Annular sealing member 168 operates to seal tube 150 and bore 120. Id. at
5.
Claims 1 and 17 are independent and are reproduced below:
1. A port fitting assembly comprising:

a port body having a bore opening to an outer surface of
the body at an opening, an angled seat surrounding the opening
to the bore, a radially inwardly extending shoulder portion, and
a female thread portion between the angled seat portion and the
shoulder portion;
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

4

an annular male nut through which a tube can extend, the
male nut being configured to trap a radially outwardly
projecting flange on the end of a tube between an inner end of
the male nut and the shoulder portion of the bore, and the male
nut including a male thread portion for engaging the female
thread portion of the bore such that the male nut can be
tightened to hold the flange on the tube to the shoulder of the
bore; and

an annular flange sealing member interposed between the
shoulder of the bore and the flange on the tube to effect an
annular seal therebetween;

wherein the flange sealing member has an annular carrier
body and an annular seal protruding axially from both axial
sides of the carrier body respectively for engaging the flange
on the tube and the shoulder of the bore.

17. A port fitting assembly comprising:

a port body having a bore opening to an outer surface of
the body at an opening, an angled seat surrounding the opening
to the bore, a radially inwardly extending shoulder portion, and
a female thread portion between the angled seat portion and the
shoulder portion;

a tube having a radially outwardly projecting flange on
an end thereof; and

an annular male nut through which the tube extends, the
male nut being configured to trap the radially outwardly
projecting flange on the end of the tube between an inner end of
the male nut and the shoulder portion of the bore to restrict
withdrawal of the tube from the bore, and the male nut
including a male thread portion for engaging the female thread
portion of the bore such that the male nut can be tightened to
hold the flange on the tube to the shoulder of the bore.
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

5
II. ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner correctly determine that Esrock discloses a
port fitting assembly with “an annular nut though which a tube extends”?
2. Did the Examiner correctly determine that the “counterbore”
feature of claim 11 does not distinguish the claim over the teachings of
Esrock?
3. Did the Examiner correctly determine that the combined
teachings of Esrock and Happel satisfy the claimed “annular carrier body”
with “an annular seal protruding axially from both axial sides of the carrier
body respectively for engaging the flange on the tube and the shoulder of the
bore”?
III. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11, and 17 as anticipated by the prior
art, and claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over the prior art.
A. Anticipation
The Examiner applied Esrock in rejecting claims 8, 11, and 17 as
anticipated. Claim 17 is independent and claims 8 and 11 depend therefrom.
The Appellants argue claims 17 and 8 based on a feature required by claim
17. Claim 17 is directed to a “port fitting assembly,” and includes the
feature of an annular male nut “through which” a tube extends. The
Appellants contend that the extension of the tube “through” the annular male
nut is absent from Esrock. App. Br. 8.
The Appellants also separately argue claim 11 based on a feature
added by that claim.
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

6
1. Claims 17 and 8
At the outset, the record reflects that there is some disagreement
between the Examiner and the Appellants as to the appropriate meaning of
the term “through” as it is used in claim 17. To that end, relying on a
dictionary definition, the Examiner urges that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term includes “‘within the limits of’ or ‘to the end of.’”
Ans. 9. The Appellants, on the other hand, contend that the Examiner’s
proffered interpretation neglects to consider “through” as it is used in the
claims, and that, when considered in that context, the term means “‘in one
side and out the opposite or another side of.’” App. Br. 9. Although the
Examiner premises a rejection involving Esrock in-part on the broader
proposed meaning of “through,” the Examiner also alternatively accounts, in
Esrock, for the pertinent claim feature when considering the narrower
meaning of “through” offered by the Appellants. See Ans. 10. Specifically,
the Examiner states “if the claim language were to state that the tube extends
through the annular nut such that the tube enters in one side of the annular
nut and extends out the opposite side of the nut, Esrock could still be relied
upon as disclosing a tube consisting of components (80) and (12).” Id. We
consider the Examiner’s alternative formulation of the involved rejection.
Esrock discloses “a fitting for releasably and sealingly connecting a
conduit to a medical instrument.” Esrock Abstract. Esrock’s Figure 1 is
reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

7

Figure 1 above depicts a cross-sectional view of an embodiment
according to Esrock’s invention. Esrock 3:53-55. The Examiner contends
that Esrock’s fitting 10 corresponds to the claimed annular male nut. See
Ans. 4. The Appellants do not dispute that contention. The Examiner also
contends that Esrock’s components 80 and 12 together constitute the
required tube. Ans. 10. Component 80 is disclosed as a “cylindrical base”
that includes “tubular connector 72” from which “tubular member 74”
extends. Esrock 6:7-8. Component 12 is described as a syringe tip and
includes “inner tube 28” with central passageway 24. Id. at 5:53-6:2. Inner
tube 28 receives tubular member 74 within passageway 24 via a “sealing fit”
so as to create a “fluid-tight sealing connection” between those components.
Id. Thus, syringe tip 12, with its associated tubular components, and
cylindrical base 80, with its associated tubular components, cooperate with
one another, structurally and functionally, to provide for the passage of fluid.
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

8
The Appellants do not dispute that syringe tip 12 and cylindrical base
90, when taken together, extend “through” fitting 10. Rather, the basis of
the Appellants’ challenge in that regard focuses on the claim requirement of
a “tube.” Reply Br. 2. To that end, the Appellants contend that claim 17
requires “a single tube” that is “a single part,” which allegedly precludes
Erock’s cylindrical base 80 and syringe tip 12 from constituting the claimed
tube in the context of anticipation. Id.
We do not agree with the Appellants. The claims do not recite that
the pertinent “tube” must be a singular or unitary structure to the exclusion
of an assembly formed from more than one structure, nor does the
Specification require such a meaning for the term. Neither is a structure
composed of only a singular component generally intrinsic to a “tube.” The
fluid passing assembly formed by the cooperation of the tubular components
of cylindrical base 80 and syringe tip 12, in our view, is regarded reasonably
as a tube.
We have considered carefully the Appellants’ arguments, but do not
discern error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 8 as anticipated by
Esrock. We sustain the rejection.
2. Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 8. Claim 8 adds a feature in connection
with a “sleeve” attached to an end of the tube, and claim 11 adds that the
sleeve includes a nut with a “counterbore therein for receiving the tubular
portion of the sleeve.” Pointing to a meaning of “counterbore” as a “flat-
bottomed cylindrical enlargement of the mount of a hole, usually of slight
depth, as for receiving a cylindrical screwhead,” the Appellants argue that
Esrock includes no disclosure of such a structure. App. Br. 10-11.
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

9
As set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner contends that
“Esrock discloses in figure 1 the nut (10) has a counterbore therein (figure 1
the larger diameter portion near (104)).” Ans. 11.
We have reviewed Esrock’s Figure 1 (reproduced supra), and the
portions of fitting 10 near element 104. We observe that the noted region in
fitting 10 includes an enlarged space, as compared to other regions within
fitting 10, which receives, among other things, component 88. Esrock
discloses the following with respect to component 88:
A quick-connect device 88 is mounted in the recess 50 in
the body 44 adjacent the distal end 48 of the body for allowing
quick connection of the syringe tip 12 to the body and quick
disconnection of the syringe tip from the body.

Esrock 6:16-20.
It is not apparent to us why the enlarged portions within fitting 10 in
the vicinity of element 104 that receive components, such as “quick-connect
device 88,” surrounding syringe tip 12 are not understood reasonably as the
required “counterbore.” Neither do the Appellants seemingly address the
Examiner’s position in that regard.
Upon consideration of the record, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner was incorrect in determining that claim 11, and, in particular, the
“counterbore” aspect of that claim, patentably distinguishes the claim over
Esrock.
B. Obviousness
1. Claims 9 and 10
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Esrock
and Gold. Claims 9 and 10 ultimately depend from claim 8, which in turn
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

10
depends from claim 17. Claims 9 and 10 add features directed to the
formation of a “fluid-tight connection” formed via a “welded connection.”
In accounting for the added features, the Examiner relied on the teachings of
Gold.
The Appellants do not argue claims 9 and 10 apart from claim 17. As
discussed above, we are not persuaded that claim 17 is distinguished
patentably over the prior art. For the same reasons, we also are not
persuaded that claims 9 and 10 are so distinguished. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Esrock and
Gold.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6
Claim 1 is independent, and claims 3, 5, and 6 ultimately depend
therefrom. Claim 1, like claim 17, is directed to a port fitting assembly.
Beyond the feature of such assembly set forth in claim 17, claim 1
additionally requires “an annular flange sealing member.” In conjunction
with that flange sealing member, claim 1 requires the following:
wherein the flange sealing member has an annular carrier
body and an annular seal protruding axially from both axial
sides of the carrier body respectively for engaging the flange on
the tube and the shoulder of the bore.

The Examiner found that the above-quoted feature is absent from
Esrock, and relied on the teachings of Happel to make-up for the deficiency.
Happel is directed to a gasket for pipe-to-pipe connection. Happel Abstract.
Happel’s Figure 2 is reproduced below and illustrates a sectional view of a
gasket according to Happel’s invention:
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

11

As shown in Figure 2 above, gasket 16 includes “rigid component 40”
and “resilient component 42.” Happel 4:9-16. The Examiner likened
Happel’s rigid component 40 to the required annular carrier body and
resilient component 42 to the required annular seal. According to the
Examiner, component 42 protrudes axially from both the axial sides of rigid
component 40. Ans. 12-13. In that regard, it is apparent that the Examiner
is of the view that any of the sides of Happel’s rigid component may be
considered “axial sides” under the theory that all of the sides are located
“around” some axis. Id. The Appellants disagree and contend that in the
context of claim 1, the referenced “axial sides” designate particular opposing
sides of the required annular carrier body, and that, in Happel, resilient
component 42 does not protrude from both the axial sides of rigid
component 40. App. Br. 14-15. To that end, the Appellants provide an
explanation with reference to portions of an embodiment according to the
claimed invention juxtaposed with a portion of Happel’s Figure 2. The
Appellants’ explanation is reproduced below:
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the two different
types of seals. At left is a portion of Fig. 4 of the present
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

12
application, showing a representative embodiment of the
annular seal. At right is an excerpt from Fig. 2 of Happel,
rotated to put it into the same orientation as the other figure.

In both figures the axial direction is horizontal, from left to
right on the page. The radial direction is the vertical direction
on the page. As can be seen at left, the seal 171 of the
representative example protrudes beyond both axial sides of the
annular carrier body 170, extending both left and right beyond
the annular carrier body 170. In contrast, in Happel's
arrangement at right, the resilient component (seal) 42
protrudes axially only rightward. No part of the seal 42 extends
to the left beyond the rigid component 40. It would not be
reasonable to read the claim language such that the seal 42,
which protrudes axially only to the right, could somehow be
considered to protrude axially beyond both axial sides of the
carrier body.
Id.
We agree with the Appellants’ assessment as to which sides of
Happel’s rigid component 40 constitute the “axial sides.” In that regard, we
share the Appellants’ view that in Happel’s arrangement, resilient
component 42 does not protrude axially from both axial sides of rigid
component 40. We also agree that in failing to protrude as required by the
claims, rigid component 40 does not operate to engage the flange of a tube
on one side and the shoulder of a bore on the other. See id. at 15. Because
Happel does not disclose the claimed annular carrier body with a seal
Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

13
protruding from both axial sides, we do not discern that the combined
teachings of Esrock and Happel result in any such configuration.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the combined teachings of
Esrock and Happel would have rendered obvious claim 1 (or by extension
dependent claims 3, 5, and 6). We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 as unpatentable over Esrock and Happel.
IV. CONCLUSION
1. The Examiner correctly determined that Esrock discloses a port
fitting assembly with “an annular nut though which a tube extends.”
2. The Examiner correctly determined that the “counterbore”
feature of claim 11 does not distinguish the claim over the teachings of
Esrock.
3. The Examiner did not correctly determine that the combined
teachings of Esrock and Happel satisfy the claimed “annular carrier body”
with “an annular seal protruding axially from both axial sides of the carrier
body respectively for engaging the flange on the tube and the shoulder of the
bore.”
V. ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8-11 and 17 over the prior
art is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 over the prior
art is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

Appeal 2011-006357
Application 11/467,348

14

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART