Ex Parte Frenal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

13808519 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/808,519 01/04/2013 Antoine Frenal
40582 7590 11/01/2018
American Air Liquide, Inc.
Intellectual Property Department
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Serie 8509 9713
EXAMINER
STCLAIR, ANDREW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
IP-USOffice@airliquide.com
Neva.Dare-c@airliquide.com
J us tin.Murray@airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTOINE FRENAL, PHILIPPE DECK,
CYRIL MANS COURT, and PHILIPPE PIS OT
Appeal2018-001494 1
Application 13/808,5192
Technology Center 3700
Before BEYERL Y M. BUNTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
16-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Aug. 7,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 28, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 28, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Feb. 24, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is L' Air Liquide, S. A.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001494
Application 13/808,519
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to a
pressurized-gas filling nozzle, a unit comprising a connector and a filling
nozzle, the use thereof and a corresponding filling method." Spec. 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 16 and 27 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 16 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
16. A filling nozzle designed to engage with a filling
connector (1) of a faucet of a pressurized-fluid recipient,
compnsmg
• a base (15, 16) and at least one claw (2) extending
longitudinally about a longitudinal axis (A),
• a filling connector (1) with at least one internal valve,
• a central space located between the at least one claw (2)
and the longitudinal axis (A) forming an enclosure configured
to receive the filling connector (1) of cylindrical overall shape,
• an internal face of the at least one claw (2) located
facing a central space being of flat overall shape and having
reliefs (12) and/or recesses (22) of set dimensions, reliefs (12)
and/or recesses (22) being spaced relative to one another in a
set fashion, and configured to fit into matching grooves (11)
and/ or reliefs (21) formed on an external face of the filling
connector (1 ),
• the at least one claw (2) being movable in relation to the
base (15, 16) transversely in relation to the longitudinal axis (A)
between an open position configured to enable insertion of the
filling connector (1) in the central space and a closed position
configured to enable the internal face of the at least one claw
(2) to fit the external face of the filling connector ( 1 ),
• said nozzle further including a locking member (3)
movable in relation to a base (15, 16) and in relation to the at
least one claw (2) between an active position locking the at
2
Appeal2018-001494
Application 13/808,519
least one claw (2) in closed position and an inactive position
enabling the at least one claw (2) to move to an open position,
• wherein the locking member (3) is adapted to be pushed
by default towards the active position thereof by a return
member ( 60),
• the filling nozzle includes a valve actuator ( 111) that is
selectively movable in the central space to actuate the opening
of the at least one internal valve of the filling connector (1 ), and
• the valve actuator ( 111) of the filling nozzle being
movable in translation independently of the position of the at
least one claw (2) and of the position of the locking member
(3).
Appeal Br. 13.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 16-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dubinsky3 in view of Scott4 and/or Le Clair. 5
DISCUSSION
Appellants address the claims as a single group. See Appeal Br. 6-11.
We select claim 16 as representative of this group, and claims 17-28 will
stand or fall with claim 16.
With respect to claim 16, the Examiner finds that Dubinsky teaches a
filling nozzle with the claimed features, except that Dubinsky does not
disclose an internal valve in the filling connector. Final Act. 4--5. The
Examiner finds that Dubinsky does disclose a valve in the nozzle body, and
the Examiner finds that both Scott and Le Clair teach a configuration that
includes an internal valve in the filling connector. Id. The Examiner
3 Dubinsky, US 6,343,630 B 1, iss. Feb. 5, 2002.
4 Scott et al., US 4,960,261, iss. Oct. 2, 1990.
5 Le Clair, US 2,457,052, iss. Dec. 21, 1948.
3
Appeal2018-001494
Application 13/808,519
concludes that it would have been obvious to include a valve in the filling
connector to automatically seal the connector after fluid transfer is complete
and that doing so "merely amount[ s] to a combination of known elements
according to known methods with predictable results." Id. at 5.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
with respect to claim 16. See Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 2-8. As
discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellants'
arguments.
First, Appellants argue "that there is no deficiency in Dubinsky" such
that "[t]here would be no purpose or impulse for the skilled artisan to
introduce an internal valve in the filling connector" of Dubinsky's device
because "the filling nozzle (1) already has an internal valve (39)." Appeal
Br. 6-7. We are not persuaded by this argument. Regardless of whether
there is a specific deficiency identified in Dubinsky's system, the Examiner
has identified a reason with adequate rational underpinnings to support the
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
modify Dubinsky to include a second valve in the filling connector. See
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In particular, the
Examiner's conclusion is supported by the art of record wherein both Scott
and Le Clair provide valves at both ends of a fluid connector and wherein
the art provides a reason for providing two valves. See Final Act. 5; see also
e.g., Le Clair col. 6, 11. 11-22 (teaching that the valves prevent fluid from
escaping when the coupling members are disengaged). Appellants do not
address expressly the Examiner's reasoning, and thus, this argument fails to
show any error in the rejection before us.
4
Appeal2018-001494
Application 13/808,519
Second, Appellants argue that adding a second valve to Dubinsky's
device would compromise the basic functionality of the device. Appeal Br.
8. Specifically, Appellants assert that equalization of pressure in Dubinsky's
nozzle and connector allows for the connector to be easily disengaged from
the nozzle and that placing a valve in the connector would prevent pressure
equalization such that the parts could not be easily disengaged. Id. We are
not persuaded for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Answer. See
Ans. 4. Specifically, Appellants do not explain adequately why the
proposed modification of Dubinsky would affect the ability to disconnect the
connector and nozzle. As the Examiner explains, the modification to
Dubinsky contemplates that the valve would be open when the connector is
connected, as in the valves of the secondary references. Id. As such, we fail
to see how the inclusion of a valve, as claimed, would affect equalization of
pressure and thus make the removal of the connector more difficult.
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to identify a
valve actuator that is selectively movable as required by the claim. Appeal
Br. 8. Appellants assert that the Examiner identifies Dubinsky's element 4
as such an actuator, but Dubinsky discloses that valve 39 only opens when
the pressure difference across the valve "overcomes the force provided by
piston spring 41." Id. Thus, Appellants assert that the valve actuator is
automatically moved to open the valve and not selectively moved to open
the valve.
However, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim, when read in light of the Specification, requires
only that the actuator is selectively moved when the operator chooses to
move it by any means. First, we note that the claim language itself does not
5
Appeal2018-001494
Application 13/808,519
provide for how the movement of the actuator is selected. The claim recites
only that the valve actuator "is selectively movable in the central space to
actuate the opening of the at least one internal valve" without further
recitation regarding how such movement is achieved. Second, the
Specification does not provide any clear indication as to how selective
movement should be construed. For example, regarding movement of the
actuator, the Specification describes:
For example, the filling nozzle includes a valve actuator
111 that is movable in translation by electromechanical and/or
hydraulic and/or pneumatic means and/or by means of a manual
or automatic control lever 204.
The lever 204 is for example pivoting and transforms for
example a rotational movement into a selective movement of
the valve actuator 111 along the longitudinal axis A (see
Figures 5 and 6).
Spec. 13, 11. 9--15. Thus, the Specification describes various means by
which the valve actuator may be moved and provides an example in which
the rotational movement of a lever translates into "selective" longitudinal
movement of the valve actuator. But the Specification does not indicate or
explain that the other forms of movement, e.g., by hydraulic means, would
not be selective. Further, this passage indicates that such "selective"
movement may be by indirect means, i.e., the user rotates a lever to provide
longitudinal movement without the user directly applying any force on the
actuator itself. Thus, we find that the Specification is consistent with the
Examiner's interpretation that the claim only requires that the user chooses
that the actuator moves and does not otherwise limit how such movement is
achieved.
6
Appeal2018-001494
Application 13/808,519
Based on this interpretation of the claim, we agree with the Examiner
that Dubinsky's method of actuating valve 39 falls within the scope of the
claim. Specifically, the user chooses to move the actuator to connect it to
valve 39 (see Figures 2 and 3), which allows for fluid flow through the
nozzle. The fluid flow through the nozzle results in high pressure that forces
the actuator to move, which in tum cause the valve to open. See Dubinsky
col. 2, 1. 47---col. 3, 1. 4. We disagree with Appellants that Dubinsky
describes only "a completely passive opening of a valve." Reply Br. 2.
Rather, as noted, the user actively moves the identified actuator to engage
the valve, which allows for fluid transfer and higher pressure that acts to
further move the actuator to open the valve.
Finally, Appellants argue that Dubinsky does not teach "a locking
member that is adapted to be pushed by default towards the active position
thereof by a return member." Appeal Br. 9. Appellants assert that the active
position is the position in which the nozzle is distributing the pressurized
fluid (Dubinsky Fig. 5), and Appellants argue that in Dubinsky's device, the
locking member "holds the retaining ring equally during active and inactive
states." Id. at 9--11. We agree that in the active position relied upon by
Appellants' argument, i.e., Dubinsky's Figure 5, the locking member
identified by the Examiner (Dubinsky's element 12) is pushed towards the
active position by the return member identified by the Examiner
(Dubinsky' s unlabeled spring), as indicated by the spring being in the
extended position, as opposed to the compressed position shown in Figure.
6. See Ans. 5---6. Further, Figure 6 shows the position of the locking
member and return member when the filling connector is to be disengaged,
and in this figure, the return member identified by the Examiner is
7
Appeal2018-001494
Application 13/808,519
compressed and urged away from this position. See Dubinsky Fig. 6; see
also Final Act. 4. Appellants do not explain adequately how the
configuration depicted in these figures fails to meet the claim limitation at
issue. Finally, to the extent Appellants argue that the return member in
Dubinsky pushes the locking member equally toward active and certain
inactive positions, we note that the claim does not foreclose such a
configuration. Rather, the claim only requires that the default position is
toward the active position and does not require any specific position when in
the inactive position.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 16. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16, and we also
sustain the rejection of claims 17-28, which fall with claim 16.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 16-28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8