Ex Parte Murray

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13381488 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
13/381,488 02/02/2012 Jonathan David Murray 65857-0203 6450
101911 7590 04/04/2017
EATON CORPORATION
c/o FISHMAN STEWART PLLC
39533 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 140
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
FRISTOE JR, JOHN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
MS tewart @ fishstewip. com
J Guenther @ fishstewip. com
docketing @ fishstewip. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN DAVID MURRAY
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 4—7, and 9—18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Eaton Corporation.”
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “relates to a fluid valve assembly for use in
an aircraft fluid transport system having limited structural clearance where
the associated ducting must be removed to service the check valve.”
(Spec. 1.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A fluid ducting configuration comprising:
a fluid duct installed in an aircraft structure and defining
a first distance (HI) between said fluid duct and said aircraft
structure;
a check valve configured to allow removal of said fluid
duct and said check valve by displacing said fluid duct a second
distance (H2) relative to said check valve;
a first duct flange connected to said fluid duct, and a
check valve flange extending from said check valve, where said
check valve flange is clamped at an interface between said first
duct flange and a second duct flange; and
a mounting extension flange extending transverse to the
check valve flange such that the check valve is located
upstream of the interface, wherein said first distance (HI) is
greater than said second distance (H2).
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4—7, 9, 12, 13, and 16—18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art (Spec. 4—5,
Fig. 1) and Aitchison (US 2005/0116114 Al, published June 2, 2005).
(Final Action 2.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and the
SAE Publication (SAE International, AS 1895 Standards Publication). (Final
Action 7.)
2
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
III. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and Smith
(US 3,484,112, issued May 21, 1968). (Final Action 8.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest
of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9—18) depending
therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 1 recites “[a]
fluid ducting configuration,” independent claim 4 recites “[a]n aircraft fluid
ducting configuration,” and independent claim 5 recites “[a] fluid check
valve assembly.” (Id.)
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites “a check valve,” “a fluid duct,” “a first
duct flange,” “a second duct flange,” and “a check valve flange” that is
“clamped at an interface between [the] first duct flange and [the] second
duct flange.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 1 also recites “a
first distance (HI)” that is the distance between the fluid duct and an aircraft
structure, and “a second distance (H2)” that is the distance the fluid duct
must be displaced to allow removal of the check valve. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that the prior art aircraft assembly disclosed in the
Appellant’s Figure 1 comprises a check valve 2, a check valve flange 13, a
fluid duct 11, a first duct flange 20, and a second duct flange 25. (See Final
Action 2—3.) “The fluid duct 11 is attached to [the] duct flange 20 which is
held against [the] check valve flange 13.” (Spec. 4.) Distance (HI) is the
distance from an aircraft structure to the fluid duct 11 and distance (H2) is
the distance the duct flange 20 must be displaced upward from the interface
3
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
to allow for removal of the check valve 2. (See id.) “The distance H2
exceeds the distance HI.” (Id.)
Independent claim 1 also recites “a mounting extension flange
extending transverse to the check valve flange such that the check valve is
located upstream of the interface, wherein said first distance (HI) is greater
than said second distance (H2).” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that Aitchison teaches a mounting extension
flange located upstream of the interface between duct flanges 70a and 70b.
(See Final Action 3.) Aitchison discloses a valve 64d having a support
ring 602 that “includes two steps 660 and 662” that are “different in
diameters in order to ensure correct orientation of the valve 64d.”
(Aitchison 149; see also id., Fig. 9d.)
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to provide
the check valve 2 in the prior art aircraft assembly with “the mounting flange
of Aitchison in order to use a mounting flange that can prevent incorrect
orientation of the valve.” (Final Action 3.) The Examiner maintains that, in
this modified version of the prior art aircraft assembly, Aitchison’s mounting
flange “reduces the distance” that the supply conduit “needs to be displaced
vertically in order to allow valve replacement.” (Answer 3—4.)
The Appellant argues that Aitchison “does not teach the use of a
check valve as recited by the present claim.” (Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply
Br. 4—6.) We are not persuaded by this argument because it is not aligned
with the Examiner’ rejection. Aitchison is not relied upon to teach a check
valve and Aitchison is not being modified to include a check valve. The
Examiner’s rejection entails providing the check valve 2 in the prior art
aircraft assembly with Aitchison’s mounting flange.
4
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
The Appellant also argues that the prior art does not show or suggest
the “removal of the fluid duct by displacing the fluid duct a second distance
(H2) smaller than the distance (HI).” (Appeal Br. 12.) We are persuaded by
this argument because, as indicated above, the Examiner’s articulated reason
for the proposed modification is “to prevent incorrect orientation of the
valve.” (Final Action 3.) We agree with the Examiner’s implication that,
when the prior art aircraft assembly is modified in the proposed manner, the
distance H2 would be reduced by a dimension comparable to the step
heights of Aitchison’s support ring 602. (See Answer 3—4, especially the
Examiner’s annotated drawing.) But, in view of the tower stop 12 in the
prior art check valve 2, the reduced distance H2 would still significantly
exceed the distance HI. (See Spec., Fig. 2.) The Examiner does not
adequately explain why a modification for the purpose of “correct
orientation” would steer one of ordinary skill in the art toward the much
larger reduction necessary for distance H2 to no longer exceed distance HI.2
Accordingly, the Examiner does not sufficiently establish that the
proposed modification of the prior art aircraft assembly would yield the fluid
ducting configuration recited in independent claim 1.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Aitchison
(Rejection 1).
2 Although the Examiner maintains that the claimed dimensional relationship
could be achieved by “optimizing variables such as dimension and scale”
(Answer 4), Aitchison implicates that “ensuring] correct orientation” can be
accomplished with relatively small steps and/or shoulders (Aitchison 149,
see also Fig. 9d).
5
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
Independent Claim 4
Independent claim 4, like independent claim 1, recites “a check
valve,” “a check valve flange,” “a fluid duct,” “first and second duct
flanges,” “a first distance (HI),” and “a second distance (H2).” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) Independent claim 4 also specifies that “said first distance
(HI) [is] greater than said second distance (H2).” (Id. )
The Appellant argues independent claim 4 in conjunction with
independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 4—8.) As discussed above, we are
persuaded by the Appellant’s position that the Examiner does not
sufficiently establish that the proposed modification of the prior art aircraft
assembly would yield an arrangement in which distance HI is greater than
distance H2.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 4 as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Aitchison
(Rejection I).
Independent Claim 5
Independent claim 5, like independent claims 1 and 4, recites “a check
valve,” “a fluid duct,” and “first and second duct flanges.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) However, independent claim 5 does not recite distances HI
and H2, but instead recites that “said check valve is located upstream of said
check valve flange for minimizing a distance that said first duct flange must
be displaced for clearance with said check valve.” (Id.) As noted by the
Examiner, claim 5 “make[s] no mention of ‘distance or clearance between
the fluid duct and the aircraft structure.’” (Answer 5.)
The Appellant argues independent claim 5 in conjunction with
independent claims 1 and 4. (See Appeal Br. 4—8.) Here, however, the
6
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
Examiner need not establish that the proposed modification would result in
distance H2 being less than HI. The Examiner need only establish that the
proposed modification would minimize (e.g., reduce) distance H2 in the
prior art aircraft assembly. As discussed above, in the proposed combination
of the prior art, the distance H2 shown in the Appellant’s Figure 1 would be
reduced by dimensions corresponding to those of Aitchison’s support
ring 602. (See Aitchison 149, Fig. 9d.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 5 as
unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Aitchison (Rejection I).
Dependent Claims 6, 11, and 15
Claims 6,11, and 15 each depend directly or indirectly from
independent claim 53 and further recite that the check valve includes “a stop
tower.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that the prior art
aircraft assembly includes a stop tower 12a (see Final Action 6), and thus the
modified version of this aircraft assembly would likewise include a stop
tower.
The Appellant argues that “a tower stop” would “significantly
increase the clearance depth for removal of the valve” and Aitchison “is not
compatible with the use of the recited tower stop while still maintaining the
recited ‘minimizing a distance’ of travel of the first duct flange.” (Appeal
Br. 13, 15—16.) We are not persuaded by this argument because claims 6,
11, and 15 do not recite a relationship between the minimizing distance and
3 As claims 6, 11, and 15 depend from independent claim 5, which “make[s]
no mention of ‘distance or clearance between the fluid duct and the aircraft
structure’” (Answer 5), the Appellant’s arguments that Aitchison “fails to
discuss clearances between the fluid duct and the aircraft structure” (Appeal
Br. 13, 15) are not persuasive.
7
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
the tower stop’s dimensions. Insofar as the Appellant is asserting that any
displacement reduction provided by Aitchison’s support ring 602 is
significantly less than the height of the prior art tower stop 12a, we agree.
Nonetheless, the distance H2 shown in the Appellant’s Figure 1 would be
reduced somewhat, and the check valve 2 in this prior art aircraft assembly
would comprise stop tower 12a. (See Aitchison 149, Fig. 9d.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and
Aitchison (Rejection I); we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior
Art, Aitchison, and the SAE Publication (Rejection II); and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and Smith
(Rejection III).
Dependent Claims 7, 9, 10, 12—14, and 18
Claims 7, 9, 10, 12—14, and 18 depend directly or indirectly from
independent claim 5 (see Appeal Br., Claims App), and are not argued
separately (see id., 13—16). They fall, therefore, with independent claim 5.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 7, 12,
13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior
Art and Aitchison (Rejection I); we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and the SAE Publication (Rejection II); and
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art, Aitchison, and Smith
(Rejection III).
8
Appeal 2015-002951
Application 13/381,488
Dependent Claims 16 and 17
Claims 16 and 17 depend from independent claims 1 and 4,
respectively. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner’s findings with
respect to these dependent claims (see Final Action 7) do not compensate for
the above discussed deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 4. Dependent claims 16 and 17 stand, therefore, with
independent claims 1 and 4.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
16 and 17 as unpatentable over the Prior Art Aircraft Assembly and
Aitchison (Rejection I).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 16, and 17.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claim 5—7, 9—15, and 18.
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-IN-PART
9