Ex Parte Stein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2018

13702520 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/702,520 12/06/2012
3624 7590 10/22/2018
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18th Floor
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander Stein
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.
SMB-PT460 (PCll
158BUS)
CONFIRMATION NO.
4050
EXAMINER
BOECKMANN, JASON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2018 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER STEIN and OLIVER DENZLER
Appeal2017-000239
Application 13/702,520 1
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's adverse decision as to the patentability of claims 1 and 3-7.
Final Office Action (October 9, 2015) (hereinafter "Final Act."). Appellants
presented arguments at an oral hearing on September 26, 2018. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify Neoperl GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief (March 11, 2016) (hereinafter "Appeal Br."), at 3.
Appeal2017-000239
Application 13/702,520
The claimed subject matter relates to "a sanitary outlet armature,"
such as a faucet. Substitute Specification (December 6, 2012) (hereinafter
"Spec."), ,r 3. Appellants contest the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
the claims over the prior art. For the reasons explained below, the evidence
on which the Examiner relies does not support a determination of
obviousness. Accordingly, we REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Claim 1 is reproduced below
with paragraphing added. The disputed claim language is shown in italics
for emphasis.
1. A sanitary outlet armature (7) comprising
a water outlet, which has an outlet opening (6)
defined by an inner circuniferential wall (4) of the outlet
armature (7), an inner thread (3) being provided on said
inner circumferential wall (4),
a sleeve-shaped outlet orifice (5, 8, 11, 14, 17),
which can be screwed or fastened into a receptacle by an
outer thread (2), and
an insert cartridge (9), which can be at least one of
inserted or screwed into the outlet orifice (5, 8, 11, 14, 17),
said insert cartridge (9) having a jet regulator,
wherein the outlet orifice (5, 8, 11, 14, 17) carries
on a circumferential wall thereof at least one ring seal (18),
which, in a functional position, at least one of radially or
axially seals between an outer circumferential wall (1) of
the outlet orifice (5, 8, 11, 14, 17) and the inner
circumferential wall ( 4) of the outlet armature (7),
the outlet orifice ( 5, 8, 11, 14, 17), in the functional
position, protrudes beyond the outlet armature via a partial
region on an outflow side, at least one tool engagement
surface (32) for a rotary tool is provided on the partial
region of the outlet orifice (5, 8, 11, 14, 17) protruding
2
Appeal2017-000239
Application 13/702,520
beyond the outlet armature (7) in the functional position,
and the tool engagement surface is formed as a two-sided
spanner engagement surface,
wherein the outlet armature (7) has an armature
body (12), which carries the outlet opening (6) in an outer
circumference thereof, and the outlet opening (6) has at
least one of a constant or shoulder-free clear opening
cross section, discharging into an inner cavity (13) of the
outlet armature (7).
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
Aghnides
Weis
Grether
Kao
EVIDENCE
us 3,130,915
US 2006/0163386 Al
US 2008/0111007 Al
US 7,677,473 B2
REJECTIONS
Apr. 28, 1964
July 27, 2006
May 15, 2008
Mar. 16, 2010
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a):
1. Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected as unpatentable over Aghnides,
Grether, and Kao.
2. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected as unpatentable over Aghnides,
Grether, Kao, and Weis.
ISSUE
The Examiner based both grounds of rejection on the finding that
Grether discloses the claimed "outlet opening ( 6) defined by an inner
circumferential wall ( 4) of the outlet armature (7)" and having "at least one
of a constant or shoulder-free clear opening cross section, discharging into
an inner cavity (13) of the outlet armature (7)." Final Act. 3, 5 (describing
that the Examiner considers the outlet opening in Grether' s armature to be
3
Appeal2017-000239
Application 13/702,520
"the very bottom most part of element 4 before the threads"). Appellants
argue that the Examiner erred by giving "outlet opening" an unreasonably
broad interpretation that fails to take into account the claim language and
fails to interpret the claim term in light of the Specification. Appeal Br. 7-9;
Reply Br. 3--4. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner
erred in finding that Grether discloses an "outlet opening" as recited in
claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites that the outlet opening is "defined by an inner
circumferential wall[] of the outlet armature." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims
Appendix). Claim 1 further recites that the outlet armature carries the outlet
opening in an outer circumference of the armature body, the outlet opening
has a constant or shoulder-free clear opening cross section, and the outlet
opening discharges into an inner cavity of the outlet armature. Id.
Appellants' Specification distinguishes between a prior art outlet
armature and the outlet armature of Appellants' invention. As can be seen
reproduced below, the prior art outlet armature is shown in Figures 3 and 4,
and the outlet armature of Appellants' invention is shown in Figure 1 and 2.
Spec. ,r,r 27-30.
4
Appeal2017-000239
Application 13/702,520
~~
'-...~ ......... ··---....-.· ~~
Figures 3 and 4 depict a prior art outlet armature 7' having outlet
opening 6' that is defined by inner circumferential wall 4 of outlet armature
7', wherein outlet opening 6' is provided in the outer circumference of
armature body 12 and discharges into inner cavity 13 of outlet armature 7'.
Figures 1 and 2 depict an outlet armature 7 of Appellants' invention having
outlet opening 6 that is defined by inner circumferential wall 4 of outlet
armature 7, wherein outlet opening 6 is provided in the outer circumference
of armature body 12 and discharges into inner cavity 13 of outlet armature 7.
Spec. ,r 48.
The Specification describes that the prior art outlet opening 6' includes
an annular flange/shoulder 15 in the portion of the outlet opening 6' on the
inflow side, facing the inner cavity 13. Id. ,r 5. This annular shoulder
"delimit[s] the screw-in path" and "seal[s] the region between the insert
cartridge and the inner circumferential wall defining the outlet opening." Id.
5
Appeal2017-000239
Application 13/702,520
By contrast, outlet opening 6 of Appellants' invention is incorporated into
outlet armature 7 "with a uniform clear opening cross section over its entire
longitudinal extension" and without an annular flange or annular shoulder on
inner circumferential wall 4. Id. ,r 13.
Thus, the Specification specifically distinguishes the uniform clear
opening cross section of the outlet opening of the Appellants' invention from
the outlet opening having an annular shoulder in the opening cross section of
the prior art. In light of this distinction described in the Specification, along
with the specific limitation within the body of the claim of "a constant or
shoulder-free clear opening cross section," one having ordinary skill in the
art would understand that the claimed "outlet opening" does not encompass
an outlet opening defined by an inner circumferential wall of the outlet
armature wherein the inner circumferential wall includes an annular flange
or shoulder.
Grether discloses discharging plumbing fixture 4 having liquid
conduit 3 defined by a circumferential wall. Grether, Fig., ,r 24. Conduit 3
includes internal threads 13 and an insertion stop 28 in the form of an
annular flange or shoulder along the circumferential wall. Id., Fig., ,r 26,
claim 9. The Examiner's arbitrary designation of only the bottom most
portion of Grether' s circumferential wall below internal threads 13 as the
claimed outlet opening is in error. As discussed above, and as recited in the
claim language, the claimed "outlet opening" cannot include an annular
flange or shoulder on the inner circumferential wall. For this reason, we do
not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1 and 3-5 as
unpatentable over Aghnides, Grether, and Kao and of claims 6 and 7 as
unpatentable over Aghnides, Grether, Kao, and Weis.
6
Appeal2017-000239
Application 13/702,520
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3-7 is reversed.
REVERSED
7