Ex Parte PAMPEL

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

13531777 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

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2 Claims 11-21 are withdrawn.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