Ex Parte Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2017

12403827 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2017)

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.
12/403,827 03/13/2009 Roderick M. Jones BOEOl-237 (08-1200) 1438
120226 7590 01/02/2018
Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2018 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):
PAIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PatentAdmin@boeing.com
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODERICK M. JONES
Appeal 2017-000483
Application 12/403,827
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000483
Application 12/403,827
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
12—17, 19, and 25—29. Claims 1—11, 18, and 21—24 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a noise-reducing aircraft personal air valve
apparatus. Spec. 11. Sole independent claim 12, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
12. A method of reducing noise in a valve
apparatus comprising:
providing a valve apparatus comprising:
an air inlet,
an air outlet,
a nozzle comprising an inner air-flow
surface having a nozzle cavity, extending
along the inner airflow surface, in
communication with the air inlet;
a valve seat comprising a seat member
disposed over the nozzle cavity at the air
inlet; and
a moveable poppet valve, comprising a
convex surface, disposed, at the air inlet,
over the seat member and the nozzle cavity;
opening the moveable poppet valve by
disposing the convex surface over and apart
from the seat member at the air inlet to flow air
from the air inlet, against the convex surface at
the air inlet, between the seat member and the
convex surface at the air inlet, into and through
the nozzle cavity, and out of the air outlet; and
closing the moveable poppet valve by
disposing the convex surface, at the air inlet,
2
Appeal 2017-000483
Application 12/403,827
over and against the seat member to
substantially prevent air from flowing between
the seat member and the convex surface.
REJECTION
Claims 12—17, 19, and 25—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Final Act. 6.1
ANALYSIS
In determining that AAPA—Figure 4 of the subject invention, which
the Specification (Spec. 112) describes as depicting a “conventional valve
apparatus”—anticipates independent claim 12 and its dependent claims, the
Examiner finds, inter alia, that Figure 4 illustrates a moveable poppet valve
comprising a convex surface. Final Act. 6. The Examiner specifically finds
that “surface 21” of this poppet valve “encompasses both convex and
concave features,” and that “the outer surfaces of the poppet valve are
convex surfaces.” Id. at 6—7. The Examiner further finds that when the
poppet valve in Figure 4 is closed, the convex portion of Figure 4’s poppet
valve is disposed “over and against the seat member” of the valve, as claim
12 requires. Id. at 6. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure
4 of the subject invention with a dashed line that purports to demonstrate this
contact. Id. at 7—8.
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 12—17, 19, 20, and 25—
29 as unpatentable over AAPA and Thomassin (US 7,070,496 B2, issued July
4, 2006). See Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 11—13. The Examiner does not
include claim 20 in the above referenced anticipation rejection. See Final Act.
6—10. Accordingly, claim 20 is not before us for review.
3
Appeal 2017-000483
Application 12/403,827
Appellant responds that the Specification characterizes the
“conventional poppet valve 19” shown in Figure 4 as being “concave,”
rather than convex, and “does not discuss the convex curve along the outer
edges of the poppet valve 19.” App. Br. 11. Appellant further asserts that
the “dashed line added by the Office in the annotated version of Figure 4 . . .
appears to contact the surface 21 at a location that is inboard from the
convex outer edges (i.e., where the surface 21 is concave).” Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded that the convex portion of the surface of poppet
valve 19 depicted in Figure 4 of the subject invention is disposed “over and
against the seat member” when the valve apparatus is closed, and thus we
decline to sustain this rejection. As an initial matter, it appears that the outer
convex edge of the poppet valve depicted in Figure 4 extends outward
beyond seat member 58 and as such, it is not clear that the dashed line in the
Examiner’s annotated Figure 4 shows that the convex surface portion of the
valve would be against the seat member when the valve is closed.
At best, Figure 4 of the subject invention appears to show that the
point of transition between the concave portion and the convex portion of
the valve would contact the seat member. More importantly, however, we
are not persuaded that the point of contact between the poppet valve and the
seat member can be determined from Figure 4. Although making such a
determination would require knowing the relative proportions of the poppet
valve and the seat member, “it is well established that patent drawings do
not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on
to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Inti, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed.
Cir. 2000).
4
Appeal 2017-000483
Application 12/403,827
The Examiner does not provide any evidence to establish that Figure 4
of the subject invention is drawn to scale, and we are unable to find any
indication in the Specification that Figure 4 is drawn to scale. Thus, Figure
4 of the subject invention cannot be relied on to show that the outer convex
portion of the poppet valve contacts the valve member surface when the
valve apparatus is closed.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12—17, 19, and 25—29 as anticipated by
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12—17, 19,
and 25—29 as anticipated by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
REVERSED
5