Ex Parte Fuller et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 6, 2019

14313138 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2019)

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