Ex Parte Rudolph et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 201311153293 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ROBERT RUDOLPH, JOE HOOVER, and DAVID G. ENGELBERT ____________________ Appeal 2011-001179 Application 11/153,293 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001179 Application 11/153,293 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-6, 9-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Spec., paras. [0002]-[0007] and Figure 1) (hereinafter “AAPA”) and Hettinger (US 6,688,325 B2, pub. Feb. 10, 2004). Ans. 3-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on January 25, 2013. We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to pneumatic brake systems for heavy vehicles. Spec., para. [0001]. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vehicle brake system comprising: a source of fluid pressure adapted to supply a braking force to at least one brake actuator; and a modular valve unit fluidly coupling the brake actuator to said source of fluid pressure, said modular valve unit comprising a plurality of valve modules, each of the plurality of valve modules comprising: a housing in which working elements of the valve module are contained; at least one port in said housing adapted to be an input port or an output port, the at least one port adapted to cooperate with and be directly fluidly connected to at least one port of another of the plurality of valve 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Haldex Brake Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-001179 Application 11/153,293 3 modules, thereby obviating the need for tubing or piping; and wherein each of the plurality of valve modules is self- contained and comprises a stand-alone unit capable of operating independently of any other of the plurality of valve modules; wherein a first of the plurality of valve modules comprises an electronic parking solenoid valve module, a second of the plurality of valve modules comprises an anticompounding valve module and a third of the plurality of valve modules comprises an inversion valve module. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 13, and 21 Only issues and findings of fact contested by Appellants in the Briefs will be addressed. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellants argue independent claims 1, 13, and 21 as a group. App. Br. 6-10. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). The Examiner found that AAPA teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 except for “a modular valve unit.” Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Hettinger teaches adjacent valve modules comprising “housings, understood to be the valve and module block (48, 38) [of Hettinger].” Id. In other words, the Examiner found the assembled unit of the “assembled valve 48 and associated module block 38” to include a housing that meets the claim limitation. Id. at 7. The Examiner concluded that: [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the brake systems of applicant’s admitted prior art to include the val[v]e modules and attachment mechanisms, as taught by Hettinger, to provide a compact modular brake control unit made up of standardized components for the purpose of reducing manufacturing and Appeal 2011-001179 Application 11/153,293 4 replacement cost and allowing for simple replacement or rearrangement of valve modules. Id. at 4-5. Appellants contend that there is no single valve module housing that includes both the working elements of the valve and a port adapted to cooperate with and be directly fluidly connected to another port of another valve module as set forth in the claim. App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants appear to want us to interpret the limitation of a “housing” to mean only a single, unitary housing structure. App. Br. 8; Hrg. Tr. 6: 14-26 and 10:3-9. Appellants point to paragraphs [0035] and [0039] and Figures 3-4, which reference housings 54, 56, and 58, in support of such an interpretation. Hrg. Tr. 6:19-26. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims. We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the Specification into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed “housing” is not limited to a single, unitary structure and, thus, can be met by “an assembled unit” comprising “the assembled valve 48 and associated modular block 38 . . . which includes the working elements (springs 60, 66 [sic]; armature 64; rocker 66; and diaphragm 50) and at least one port (see 44a, 44b, 46a, 46b, and 88 of fig. 2).” Ans. 6-7. Neither the written description nor the language of the claims precludes the housing from being an assembly of two or more elements. Appeal 2011-001179 Application 11/153,293 5 Appellants also contend that the valve modules of Hettinger are not self-contained and fail to comprise stand-alone units as set forth in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants contend that “for the system taught in Hettinger to function, it is necessary to couple the external valves onto the module block.” App. Br. 8. Appellants’ contention is not persuasive because it does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner is not relying solely on the external valves of Hettinger as meeting the limitation of the “valve module,” but rather on the assembly of the external valve and module block of Hettinger. See Ans. 8-9 (“the Examiner again points to figure 5 of Hettinger, which shows a single self-contained valve module (48, 38). The valve modules meet the claim limitation of being a ‘stand-alone unit’ in that each of the valve modules are separately provided (see fig. 5, 6a, 7); and further meet the claim limitation of being ‘capable of operating independently of any other of the plurality of valve modules’ in that each of the valve modules are independently fluidly connected to a common block/base (202, 204; 302, 304) through ports (284; 322) and comprise individual solenoids (52) (see fig. 6a, 6b, 7).”). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why Hettinger’s assembly of the external valve and module block is not self- contained and fails to comprise a stand-alone unit. Appellants further contend that the valve modules of Hettinger cannot be directly fluidly connected to each other as set forth in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants contend that “[i]t is clear that the valves [48] cannot be directly coupled to each other. Rather; each valve [48] must be coupled to a module block [38] and, in turn, various module blocks [38] may be coupled to each other.” App. Br. 9. Again, Appellants’ Appeal 2011-001179 Application 11/153,293 6 contention is not persuasive because it does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner since the Examiner is not relying solely on the external valves 48 (nor solely on the module blocks 38) as meeting the limitation of the “valve module,” but rather on the assembly of the external valve 48 and module block 38 of Hettinger. See Ans. 8-9. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why Hettinger’s assemblies of the external valves and module blocks cannot be directly coupled to each other. We also do not find persuasive Appellants’ general contention that the Examiner has not provided “a reason that would have prompted the skilled worker to have arranged [all of the elements of the claims] in the manner necessary to reach the claimed invention.” App. Br. 9. The contention is unconvincing as it does not identify any deficiencies in the Examiner’s stated rationale—“to provide a compact module brake control unit made up of standardized components for the purpose of reducing manufacturing and replacement costs and allowing for simple replacement or rearrangement of valve modules.” Ans. 4-5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious from the combination of AAPA and Hettinger, and we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 Claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 or 13. Appellants’ arguments in support of the patentability of claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 solely relate to the perceived deficiencies Appeal 2011-001179 Application 11/153,293 7 in the combined teachings of AAPA and Hettinger. 2 App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. Since we have found no such deficiencies in the combination of AAPA and Hettinger, we find that the Examiner did not err in concluding that the subject matter of claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 would have been obvious from the combination of AAPA and Hettinger, and we sustain the rejection of claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-21 under § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc 2 Regarding claim 5, Appellants argued at the oral hearing that AAPA and Hettinger did not teach “an attachment mechanism by which adjacent valve modules are detachably joined together.” Claims App’x.; Hrg. Tr. 10:25 to 12:2. However, that feature was not argued in the briefs and was raised for the first time at oral argument. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(e)(1)(2011), Appellants may only present argument relied on in the Brief or Reply Brief, except as permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(e)(2). Because Appellants have not shown good cause why or how the argument is based upon a relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, we decline to consider the argument. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation