Ex Parte PAMPELDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 19, 201813531777 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/531,777 06/25/2012 JanPAMPEL 36122 7590 06/19/2018 The Ollila Law Group LLC 2569 Park Lane SUITE 202 Lafayette, CO 80026 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. 80000/1120 9487 EXAMINER HEWITT, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/19/2018 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAN P AMPEL Appeal2017-007048 Application 13/531,777 1 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 22. Final Office Action (July 8, 2016) (hereinafter "Final Act."). 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 Jan Pampel ("Appellant") identifies the real party in interest as Norgren GmbH. Appeal Brief (October 24, 2016) (hereinafter "Appeal Br."), at 4. 2 Claims 11-21 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal2017-007048 Application 13/531,777 The claimed subject matter relates to "a coupling system for an expandable fluid distribution system." Specification (June 25, 2012) (hereinafter "Spec."), at 1, 1. 6. The Specification identifies "a need in the art for an expandable fluid distribution system that can be coupled in series without requiring extra coupling components between the fluid modules." Id. at 1, 11. 27-29. The Examiner rejected one of the dependent claims as indefinite and rejected all the claims on appeal as anticipated by a prior art reference. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the Examiner that the dependent claim is indefinite. We disagree, however, with the Examiner's finding of anticipation. Accordingly, we AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A coupling system for a fluid module (100) of an expandable fluid distribution system, comprising: a first coupling side (104) of the fluid module (100) including: a female coupling part comprising an aperture (105) and a shoulder (108); a male coupling part comprising a coupling tab ( 106) extending from the first coupling side ( 104 ); a second coupling side (204) of the fluid module (100) including: a female coupling part comprising a slot (206) sized and shaped to receive at least a portion of the coupling tab (106) of an adjoining fluid module and engage the portion of the coupling tab (106) when the coupling tab is rotated relative to the slot; and 2 Appeal2017-007048 Application 13/531,777 a male coupling part comprising a fluid stem (205) and an engagement rim (208) sized and shaped to engage the shoulder (108) of an adjoining fluid module. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS The Final Office Action includes the following rejections: 1. Claim 22 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. 2. Claims 1-10 and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Didier (US 8,985,153 B2, issued March 24, 2015). ANALYSIS First Ground of Rejection: Indefiniteness Claim 22 recites, "The method of claim 1, wherein the coupling tab is rotated relative to the slot by approximately 90 degrees." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejected claim 22 as being indefinite because "[c]laim 1 is drawn to a coupling system." Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 10 (Examiner explaining that "claim 1 recites no method, and there is no antecedence for a method in the claim"). Appellant argues that "method claim 22, although in a different statutory class, includes all the limitations of claim 1 by referring to the coupling tab of claim 1." Appeal Br. 14. Even if the coupling tab recited in claim 22 could be interpreted to be the one recited in claim 1, claim 22 as a whole is directed to "[t]he method of claim 1." Claim 1, however, is directed to a coupling system for a fluid module, not a method. We agree with the Examiner that claim 22 is indefinite because no antecedent basis 3 Appeal2017-007048 Application 13/531,777 exists for "[ t ]he method of claim 1." As a result, the method claimed in claim 22 has no steps, and it is unclear which limitations from claim 1 form a part of the claimed method. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Second Ground of Rejection: Anticipation The Examiner finds that Didier discloses a coupling system for a fluid module comprising first coupling side 153 and second coupling side 154. Final Act. 3 (citing Didier, Fig. 2). The Examiner appears to modify this finding in the Examiner's Answer, identifying the combination of sides 151 and 153 as comprising the claimed "first coupling side" and the combination of sides 152 and 154 as comprising the claimed "second coupling side." Examiner's Answer (February 14, 2017), at 3, 5, and Exs. A, C. The Examiner further finds that Didier' s second coupling side 154 comprises "a male coupling part comprising a fluid stem (106b or 122, for example) and an engagement rim (a given portion or portions of the stem) sized and shaped to engage the shoulder of an adjoining fluid module." Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 6, Ex. D (Examiner identifying element 106b as the male coupling part on the second coupling side). Appellant contests the finding that Didier discloses a second coupling side including "a male coupling part comprising a fluid stem ... and an engagement rim ... sized and shaped to engage the shoulder ... of an adjoining fluid module," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant argues that "the purported fluid stem, item 106b or 122, is shown as extending from Didier 's first face 11 Oa, not the fourth side 154." Id. at 12. We begin first with the Examiner's finding as to element 122 of Didier. Didier discloses that "valve sub-base 100 can include one or more 4 Appeal2017-007048 Application 13/531,777 fluid nozzles 102a-102c" and "each nozzle 102a-102c can include one or more barbs 122a-122c." Didier, col. 7, 11. 11-15. Didier describes that "the nozzles 102a-102c can be formed on a first face 110A of the valve sub-base 100." Id. at col. 7, 11. 27-29. As noted by Appellant, nozzles 102a-102c are not disposed on either fourth side 154 or second side 152, which the Examiner identified as corresponding to the claimed "second coupling side." Thus, the Examiner's finding that Didier discloses a second coupling side including a male coupling part comprising a fluid stem (122) is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We tum second to the Examiner's finding as to element 106b of Didier. Didier discloses that valve sub-base 100 includes coupling system 200 comprising first female coupling member 106a and second male coupling member 106b. Id. at col. 8, 11. 12-15, 29-30, and 34-35. Didier discloses that "second coupling member 106b is formed on a second side 152 of the valve sub-base 100." Id. at col. 8, 11. 31-33. We agree with Appellant that male second coupling member 106b is not included on fourth side 154. We also find unreasonable the Examiner's interpretation, presented for the first time in the Answer, that "second coupling side" of the claimed fluid module reads on the combination of second side 152 and fourth side 154 of Didier's valve sub-base 100. Didier identifies elements 152 and 154 as different sides of sub-base 100. The Examiner makes an unreasonable interpretation of "second coupling side" as encompassing two different sides of sub-base 100 in the Answer. Nonetheless, even if the combination of the two sides 152 and 154 were deemed to constitute the claimed "second coupling side," claim 1 still is not anticipated because Didier's male coupling member 106b is not a 5 Appeal2017-007048 Application 13/531,777 "fluid stem," as recited in claim 1. Appellant's Specification describes that when fluid stem 205 is inserted into aperture 105, fluid can flow through fluid stem 205 via fluid passageway 107. Spec. 10, 11. 15-26; Fig. 4. By contrast, Didier does not disclose that fluid passes through coupling member 106b. Thus, Didier' s coupling member 106b is not a fluid stem as claimed. For these reasons, the Examiner's finding that Didier anticipates independent claim 1 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claim 1, and claims 2-10 and 22 which depend therefrom. DECISION We sustain the rejection of claim 22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-10 and 22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Didier. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation