Ex Parte Fuller et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 6, 201914313138 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/313,138 06/24/2014 4859 7590 03/08/2019 MACMILLAN SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC ONE MARITIME PLAZA FIFTH FLOOR 720 WATER STREET TOLEDO, OH 43604-1619 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Edward Nelson Fuller 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. 1-54905 7293 EXAMINER MACKAY-SMITH, SETH WENTWORTH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2019 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): MST@MSTFIRM.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDWARD NELSON FULLER, PARTHIBAN ARUNASALAM, CHEN YANG, MARK LUCKEVICH, and JOE OJEDA 1 Appeal2018-004841 Application 14/313, 138 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CAL VE, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action finally rejecting claims 4--7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 21-26. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Zhejiang Dunan Hetian Metal Co., LTD., is identified as the real party in interest (Br. 3) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. 2 This appeal comes to us following a grant of Appellant's Petition to Revive on April 3, 2018. Appeal2018-004841 Application 14/313, 138 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 11 and 21 are independent, with claim 11 reproduced below. 11. A microvalve comprising: a base plate defining a plane and including a surface, a recessed area provided within the surface, and a first fluid port provided within the recessed area; a cover plate defining a plane and including a surface, a recessed area provided within the surface, and a second fluid port provided within the recessed area; an intermediate plate defining a plane; a first sealing structure extending outwardly from a bottom surface of the recessed area of the base plate toward the intermediate plate and about the first fluid port; and a second sealing structure extending outwardly from a bottom surface of the recessed area of the cover plate toward the intermediate plate and about the second fluid port; wherein the base plate and the first sealing structure are formed as a single part, the cover plate and the second sealing structure are formed as a single part, and each of the first and second sealing structures is a wall having a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape; wherein the intermediate plate has a first surface that faces the surface of the base plate and a second surface that faces the surface of the cover plate, the intermediate plate including a displaceable member that is slidably movable relative to the base and cover plates, the sliding movement of the displaceable member occurring within the plane defined by the intermediate plate and parallel to the planes defined by the base and cover plates; wherein the displaceable member is movable between a closed position and an opened position; wherein the displaceable member includes a plurality of actuator ribs formed integrally with the intermediate plate for moving the displaceable member between the closed and opened positions, and a sealing portion connected through an 2 Appeal2018-004841 Application 14/313, 138 elongated arm portion to a hinge portion on the intermediate plate; wherein the displaceable member is positioned relative to the base plate and the cover plate such that a first space is defined between the displaceable member and a surface of the recessed areas of the base plate and the cover plate, the first space having a first thickness, and such that a second space is defined between the displaceable member and the first and second sealing structures, the second space having a second thickness smaller than the first thickness; wherein in the closed position the displaceable member cooperates with the first and second sealing structures to reduce fluid communication through the first and second fluid ports and allow at least some fluid to leak through the second space into or out of at least one of the first and second fluid ports; wherein in the opened position, the displaceable member does not cooperate with at least a portion of the first and second sealing structures to reduce fluid communication through the first and second fluid ports; and wherein in both the opened and the closed positions, the first space defined between the displaceable member and a surface of the recessed areas of the base plate and the cover plate, and the second space defined between the displaceable member and the first and second sealing structures are maintained. REJECTIONS Claims 4--7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Patel (US 6,866,233 B2, iss. Mar. 15, 2005). Claims 4--7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the AAP A and Oliver (US 4,651,973, iss. Mar. 24, 1987). 3 Appeal2018-004841 Application 14/313, 138 ANALYSIS Claims 4-7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 21-26 As Unpatentable Over AAP A and Patel Appellant argues claims 4--7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 21-26 as a group. See Br. 12-18 (claims 11 and 21 together). We select claim 11 as representative, with claims 4--7, 9, 10, 1 7, 19, and 21-26 standing or falling with claim 11. Regarding claim 11, the Examiner finds that Appellant's Admitted Prior Art as set forth in the Specification (AAPA) discloses all the claimed features except for the first and second sealing structures about ports 4a, 4b comprising a raised seat of trapezoidal cross section. Final Act. 5---6. 3 The Examiner finds that Patel teaches the use of a raised seat in a microvalve. Id. at 7. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the seal structures of the AAP A in the form of raised seat structures taught by Patel "in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of seat surface area, thus reducing the effect of any seat contamination." Id. at 3, 7. The Examiner finds that the AAPA, as modified, inherently would include spaces of two different thicknesses, as claimed, because the AAP A already teaches a space between the valve member ( displaceable member 30) and the seat around each port of 3 µm and, when this space is maintained as it necessarily must be, a larger space would exist between the valve member and the base plate as shown in Figure 4 of Patel between valve member 50 and the base plate around port 54. Id. at 7-8. The Examiner explains that Patel's seat is not added in the 3 µm space of the AAP A. See Ans. 4---6. 3 The Examiner also finds that the AAP A does not teach a through flow configuration but Appellant admits the through flow configuration is prior art. Id. at 6 (referencing "Non-Final Rejection, mailed March 29, 2016, at page 4"). Appellant does not dispute this finding by the Examiner. 4 Appeal2018-004841 Application 14/313, 138 Appellant argues that the Examiner identified a second space S2 in the AAP A but failed to identify a first space that has a thickness greater than the second space as claimed. Br. 14. This individual attack on the references is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of the AAP A and Patel to teach a first space of a greater thickness than the second space of the AAPA. See Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 3-5. The Examiner explains that adding Patel's raised sealing structures on the AAP A would space base and cover plates 2, 4 of the AAPA further from displaceable member 30 of the AAPA than Patel's added seats would be spaced from the displaceable member as shown in Patel, Figure 4, and this configuration would result in a first space of greater thickness than the second space as claimed. Ans. 3-5. Appellant also argues that the improved, claimed microvalve does not add a raised seat structure but instead deepens the cavity portion around each valve so that the space between the valve and displaceable member is less than the space between the recessed cavity portion and displaceable member. Br. 14--15. Appellant further argues that adding a raised seat within a 3 µm space between the AAPA's base plate 4 and displaceable member 30 would render the AAP A valve inoperative by reducing or eliminating the 3 µm space between the valve ports and displaceable member 30. Id. at 15. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner is not placing Patel's seat in the 3 µm space between the displaceable member 30 and the cover/base 2, 4 of the AAP A. Ans. 4. The Examiner is raising the seal of the AAP A as taught by Patel while maintaining a 3 µm space between that raised seat and displaceable member 30. Id. at 4---6. The net effect of adding Patel's raised seat to the AAPA is to space displaceable member 30 further from the base plate as illustrated in Figure 4 of Patel. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 3. 5 Appeal2018-004841 Application 14/313, 138 For similar reasons, Appellant's arguments that the proposed change to the AAP A would render the AAP A unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of allowing some fluid to leak through the second space at the fluid port, as claimed, and would render the AAP A microvalve inoperable and change its principle of operation (Br. 1 7) are not persuasive. The AAP A is not being modified by the teachings of Patel to urge sealing portion 31 of displaceable member 30 of the AAP A into contact with plate 4 as Appellant alleges. Id. at 17-18. Rather, the 3 µm space between the seal and displaceable member of the AAP A is retained but the seal is modified by Patel's teaching to use a raised seat for a sliding valve to reduce the area of potential contamination of the seal. Final Act. 7; Ans. 5. This modification of the AAPA necessarily results in the surfaces of the base and cover plates being spaced away from displaceable member 30 by a greater first space. See Ans. 3. The Examiner also emphasizes that the rejection is not importing an air tight seal of Patel into the AAP A because Patel is relied upon solely to teach that it is well- known in the art of sliding valves to raise the seat relative to the housing. Id. at 5. No contact between the raised seat of Patel and displaceable member 3 0 of the AAP A is proposed. Id. ( noting that "it is improper to import such features of the secondary references into the primary reference"). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 and claims 4--7, 9, 10, 17, 19, and 21-26, which fall therewith. Claims 4-7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 21-26 As Unpatentable Over AAP A and Oliver Appellant argues claims 4--7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 21-26 as a group. See Br. 12-18. We select claim 11 as representative, with claims 4--7, 9, 10, 17, 19, and 21-26 standing or falling with claim 11. 6 Appeal2018-004841 Application 14/313, 138 The Examiner again relies on the AAP A to teach all of the features of claim 11 except a raised seat and through flow as in the previous rejection. Final Act. 16-18. The Examiner relies on Oliver to teach a raised seat. Id. at 18. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to improve the AAP A with this seal "to yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of seat surface area, thus reducing the effect of any seat contamination." Id. at 19. The Examiner also finds that the addition of Oliver's raised seat/seal to the AAP A creates a first and a second space of different thicknesses. Appellant presents the same arguments against the Examiner's use of Oliver's raised seat as were presented against the Examiner's use of Patel's raised seat. See Br. 14--18. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons as in the previous rejection. The Examiner is not changing operation of the AAPA other than to use Oliver's raised seat to cooperate with and seal with displaceable member 30 while maintaining the 3 µm space between the seat and displaceable member 30. This modification necessarily results in a larger space being formed between displaceable member 30 and the recessed areas of the base and cover plates as discussed in the previous rejection. See Final Act. 10. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 and claims 4--7, 9, 10, 1 7, 19, and 21-26, which fall therewith. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 4--7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 21-26. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation