Ex Parte Stettner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2017

12774213 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/774,213 05/05/2010 Cameron Wade Stettner 19351 (CNHA:0058) 7500
71475 7590 08/03/2017
CNH Industrial America LLC
Intellectual Property Law Department
700 STATE STREET
RACINE, WI53404
EXAMINER
LINFORD, JAMES ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2017 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):
napatent @ cnhind. com
vannette.azarian @ cnhind.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAMERON WADE STETTNER and DENNIS CHAHLEY
Appeal 2016-003479
Application 12/774,213
Technology Center 3600
Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Cameron Wade Stettner and Dennis Chahley (Appellants)1 seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s rejection2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—4, 7, 9—13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 as
unpatentable over Guest (US 7,410,193 B2, iss. Aug. 12, 2008) and
McCartney (US 6,725,788 B2, iss. Apr. 27, 2004); and of claims 5, 6, 14,
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CNH Industrial
Canada, Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in
the Final Office Action, dated October 6, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2016-003479
Application 12/774,213
and 19 as unpatentable over Guest, McCartney, and Goller (DE 4,002,057
Al, pub. Feb. 7, 1991).3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations
emphasized.
1. A hose coupling assembly, comprising:
a collet comprising a head and an axial protrusion
extending from the head in a first axial direction, wherein the
axial protrusion is configured to engage a hose while the axial
protrusion is in a locked position, and to disengage the hose while
the axial protrusion is in an unlocked position;
a housing disposed about the axial protrusion and
configured to receive the hose, wherein an inner surface of the
housing is shaped to enable movement of the axial protrusion
toward the unlocked position in response to movement of the
axial protrusion in the first axial direction, and to drive the axial
protrusion toward the locked position in response to movement
of the axial protrusion in a second axial direction, opposite the
first axial direction, and wherein the axial protrusion is resiliently
biased radially outward from the head such that the axial
protrusion maintains contact with the inner surface of the
housing without being driven radially outward by contact with
another surface; and
a gasket disposed between the head of the collet and an
axial surface of the housing, wherein the gasket is configured to
3 Claims 8 and 17 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 2. The Examiner
withdrew the rejections of claims 1—7, 9-16, and 18—20, both under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written
description requirement; and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention. Ans. 2—3.
2
Appeal 2016-003479
Application 12/774,213
bias the collet in the second axial direction with sufficient force
to drive the axial protrusion to the locked position while an
external force in the first axial direction is not applied to the
collet.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1—4, 7, 9—13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 over Guest
and McCartney
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1—4, 7, 9-13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 over Guest and
McCartney. See Appeal Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2-A.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Guest teaches a hose
coupling assembly including, inter alia, “collet (23) comprising a head and
an axial protrusion (41) extending from the head in a first axial direction,”
and “a housing (20) disposed about the axial protrusion and configured to
receive the hose,” where “the axial protrusion is resiliently biased radially
outward from the head such that the axial protrusion maintains contact with
the inner surface of the housing without being driven radially outward by
contact with another surface.” Final Act. 4—5.
However, the Examiner acknowledges that
Guest fails to disclose a gasket disposed between the head of the
collet and an axial surface of the housing, wherein the gasket is
configured to bias the collet in [a] second axial direction with
sufficient force to drive the axial protrusion to the locked position
while an external force in the first axial direction is not applied
to the collet.
Id. at 5.
The Examiner then looks to McCartney for teaching:
gasket (56) disposed between the head of a first member (54) and
an axial surface of a second member (12), wherein the gasket is
3
Appeal 2016-003479
Application 12/774,213
configured to bias the first member in the second axial direction
. . . with sufficient force to drive the first member to a locked
position while an external force in the first axial direction is not
applied to the first member, for the purpose of providing a means
to aid in sealing the joint, to provide sufficient force [to] insure
that mating members stay mated together, and to take-up play in
the mating members to aid in the reduction of wear between the
mating members.
Id. at 5—6 (citing McCartney, Figs. 2, 3, and 5; and col. 1,11. 53—58).
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious
to modify the device of Guest, to have a gasket disposed between
the head of the collet and an axial surface of the housing, wherein
the gasket is configured to bias the collet in the second axial
direction with sufficient force to drive the axial protrusion to the
locked position while an external force in the first axial direction
is not applied to the collet, as taught by McCartney, for the
purpose of providing a means to aid in sealing the joint, to
provide sufficient force in insure that mating members stay
mated together, and to take-up play in the mating members to aid
in the reduction of wear between the mating members.
Id. at 6. (emphasis added).
In taking issue with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions,
presented in the Final Office Action, Appellants first observe that the
references “do not appear to teach or suggest a gasket that biases the collet
in the second axial direction with sufficient force to drive the axial
protrusion/tooth/teeth to engage the hose while an external force in the first
axial direction is not applied to the collet, as generally recited by
independent claims 1, 10, and 16.” Appeal Br. 14. More specifically,
Appellants point out that McCartney “discloses compressing a gasket
between a surface of a coupler and a surface of a support beam to form an
4
Appeal 2016-003479
Application 12/774,213
air seal,” but “does not appear to provide any indication that the gasket 56
biases a collet in a second axial direction with sufficient force to drive an
axial protrusion/tooth/teeth to engage a hose while an external force in a first
axial direction is not applied to the collet, as generally recited by
independent claims 1, 10, and 16.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellants also contend that McCartney merely “discloses that an
‘[a]ir hose 34 is fitted over the outer portion 60 of the hollow tube and can
be held in place by friction or by a hose clamp if additional clamping force is
necessary.’” Id. (quoting McCarthy, col. 3,11. 16—18). Referring to Guest at
column 4, lines 31—46, Appellants also explain that “Guest discloses that the
cap 20 is rotated into a position in which the tube is ‘sealed at the end of the
tube by the inner seal and around the outer surface of the tube by the outer
seal and O-ring’,” and reasons, inter alia, that “it is unclear why one skilled
in the art would be motivated to add an additional] sealing element to the
tube coupling of Guest.” Id. at 16. We agree.
While the Examiner’s response covers pages 3—11 of the Answer, it
appears to repeat a single contention, that “McCartney teaches a gasket that
has biasing force in a second direction where the biasing force in the second
direction moves mating components to their locking or engaging position
while [an] external force in the first axial direction is not applied.” Ans. 9.
From the foregoing, the Examiner concludes that “having the seal of
McCartney incorporated into Guest would have caused the mating
components of Guest to also be held in a tight relationship (locked or
engaged relationship) insuring components are in their final positional
relationships (locked or engaged relationship).” Id. at 11.
5
Appeal 2016-003479
Application 12/774,213
However, we agree with Appellants that “because the cap 20 of Guest
is rotated after the tube 11 is engaged with the collet 23, if the gasket 56 of
McCartney were disposed between the cap 20 and the collet 23, e.g., in a
compressed state after the tube 11 is engaged with the collet 23, the gasket
56 would interfere with rotation of the cap 20 relative to the collet 23,” with
the result that “the tube coupling 10 of Guest would be rendered unsuitable
for its intended purpose, i.e., to drive the tube 11 into engagement with the
seals without damaging the seals.” Reply Br. 3.
“The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless
the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Here, we find nothing in the record to support the
Examiner’s reasoning. Absent some articulated rationale for doing so, the
Examiner’s conclusory assertion is inadequate to support a conclusion of
obviousness. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007);
see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“[T]he legal
conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal
conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1—4, 7, 9-13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 as obvious over Guest and
McCartney.
6
Appeal 2016-003479
Application 12/774,213
Obviousness of claims 5, 6, 14, and 19 over Guest, McCartney, and
Goller
Regarding claims 5, 6, 14, and 19, the Examiner’s rejection is based
on the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to the
combination of Guest and McCartney. See Final Act. 13—14. The addition
of Goller does not remedy the deficiencies of that combination, as discussed
supra.
Accordingly, for similar reasons as discussed above for claim 1, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5, 6, 14, and 19 over
Guest, McCartney, and Goller.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections.
REVERSED
7