14121298 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

Ex Parte Schroeder

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 2018

14121298 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/121,298 77083 7590 PaulM. Denk 763 South New Ballas Ste. 305 St. Louis, MO 63141 08/15/2014 07/02/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Timothy Schroeder 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. 8219 9665 EXAMINER TIETJEN, MARINA ANNETTE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2018 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 TIMOTHY SCHROEDER Appeal2017-010110 Application 14/121,298 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-010110 Application 14/121,298 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellant's claims are directed generally "to a valve assembly for a gasoline or gasoline blended with ethanol dispensing nozzle, and more particularly, to an improved poppet seal in a dispensing nozzle to allow a user to control dispensing of fuel through the nozzle." Spec. 1, 11. 2-5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A poppet seal for use in a fuel dispensing nozzle compnsmg: a poppet seal holder comprising a cylindrical base portion and a cylindrical central post extending up from a center of the base portion, the base portion having a bottom having an inner ring; and a fluoroelastomer compound ring molded into the inner ring of the poppet seal holder, the fluoroelastomer compound ring being overmolded to extend out of the inner ring to cover the bottom of the base portion. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Trosch Crudup et al. Pfau us 4,215,717 us 5,052,435 CH 481330 2 Aug. 5, 1980 Oct. 1, 1991 Nov. 15, 1969 Appeal2017-010110 Application 14/121,298 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1---6 and 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crudup and Trosch. Ans. 2. Claims 1--4 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pfau and Trosch. Ans. 6. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that both Crudup and Pfau disclose all of the structural limitations of the claimed poppet valve, but fail to disclose the molding process recited to make the poppet and that the elastomer is a fluoroelastomer. See Ans. 2, 4 - 5, 8. The Examiner first notes that the molding aspects of the claims are a product-by-process limitation and, in this case, do not result in any structural difference between the prior art and the claims, thus the Examiner gives this limitation little weight. The Examiner then finds that Trosch teaches that a suitable elastomer for such an application could be the claimed fluoroelastomer. See Ans. 5, 8. Appellant first argues that the Examiner's use of Crudup is improper because Crudup discloses a pump valve rather than a fuel dispensing nozzle. App. Br. 7. We agree with the Examiner, however, that the claims only require a poppet valve and that the specific application is merely an intended use, and that Crudup is capable as being used as such. Ans. 9. Appellant next argues that Crudup is not molded as claimed and so cannot meet the limitations regarding molding and overmolding. App. Br. 7. Appellant, however, does not provide any explanation as to how a molded valve would 3 Appeal2017-010110 Application 14/121,298 differ in structure from the valve disclosed in Crudup. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that this limitation should be accorded little weight and that the application of Crudup is appropriate. Finally, Appellant argues that Trosch is a unidirectional valve that is "not structured in any way similar to nor functional[ly] related to the molded ring of the current invention." App. Br. 7; see id. at 7-8. As the Examiner states, however, Trosch "was merely relied upon to teach an equivalent suitable material to polyurethane (sealing material used in Crudup et al.) as a sealing material for valves." Ans. 10. As such, the Examiner is not utilizing Trosch for any structural similarities to the claim, but merely to show that a fluoroelastomer is a suitable substitute for the polyurethane material used in Crudup. We are not, therefore, apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection. As with Crudup, Appellant's only argument against Pfau is that it is assembled in a snap-fit manner rather than molded as claimed. App. Br. 8- 9. As with Crudup, we are not persuaded that this recitation provides any structural limitation that differs from that disclosed in Pfau. Appellant also makes the same argument regarding Trosch, which we already found unpersuasive above. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over Pfau and Trosch. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2017-010110 Application 14/121,298 AFFIRMED 5