Hawa Valves (India) Private Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 8, 2021

2020006040 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2021)

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.
15/479,936 04/05/2017 Javed Anwar Hawa 728250 9795
23460 7590 07/08/2021
LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON AVENUE
CHICAGO, IL 60601-6731
EXAMINER
REID, MICHAEL ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2021 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAVED ANWAR HAWA
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8, and 9. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “HAWA VALVES
(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a top entry ball valve for
controlling the flow of a fluid through a pipe, and a method of assembling
such a valve.” Spec. 1:7–8. Claims 1 and 9 are independent, and claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A top entry ball valve comprising:
a housing with a central cavity communicating with two
bores which are co-axial along a first axis, the housing
including a top opening disposed substantially transverse to the
first axis;
a ball valve element rotatably mounted within the central
cavity for rotation about a second axis, the valve element
comprising a through bore, the ball valve element being sized to
be received into the central cavity through the top opening of
the housing;
first and second seat assemblies, one mounted within
each of the co-axial bores;
a first gear assembly and a second gear assembly
engaged with the first and second seat assemblies respectively;
a first rotatable drive and a second rotatable drive
engaged with the first gear assembly and the second gear
assembly respectively,
wherein the first gear assembly and the second gear
assembly are configured to move the seat assemblies along the
first axis in a first direction away from the valve element when
the first rotatable drive and the second rotatable drive are
rotated in a first direction, and to move the seat assemblies
along the first axis in a second direction, opposite to the first
direction, when the first and second drives are rotated in the
opposite direction, to bring the seat assemblies into sealing
contact with the valve element.
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hurst US 3,653,631 Apr. 4, 1972
Matthews US 3,934,606 Jan. 27, 1976
Hartmann US 4,506,864 Mar. 26, 1985
Horvei US 4,727,901 Mar. 1, 1988
Eminger US 4,844,410 July 4, 1989

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 5, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being
anticipated by Horvei.
Claims 1–6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hurst, Matthews, and Hartmann.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Eminger and Matthews.
OPINION
Anticipation—Horvei
The Examiner finds that Horvei discloses a top entry ball valve as
recited in independent claim 1, including, in pertinent part, “first and second
seat assemblies” (sleeves 13), “one mounted within each of the co-axial
bores” of housing 1, and first and second rotatable drives (gear wheels 15)

2 Appellant also requests the Board’s review of an objection to the drawings.
Appeal Br. 4–6; see Final Act. 2. This issue relates to a petitionable matter
and not to an appealable matter. Thus, the relief sought by the Appellant
should have been presented by a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 instead of
by appeal to this Board. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1077–78 (BPAI
2010) (precedential).
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

4
engaged with first and second gear assemblies (rack shaped parts 16 on
sleeves 13), wherein the first and second gear assemblies are configured to
move the seat assemblies along the first axis in a first direction away from
the valve element and to move the seat assemblies along the first axis in a
second direction, opposite the first direction, “to bring the seat assemblies
into sealing contact with the valve element.” Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant contends that Horvei’s seat assemblies (sleeves 13) “are not
mounted within each of the coaxial bores,” but, rather, “are mounted within
the valve element itself, that is, they are mounted with the ball
member 3, 4.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also contends that Horvei’s seat
assemblies 13 “are not brought into sealing contact with the valve element”
because, instead, they “are in continual contact with the valve element.” Id.
at 10.
The Examiner states that claim 1 “does not recite or require there to
be a period of time where the seat assemblies are not contacting the valve
element.” Ans. 12. According to the Examiner, in Figure 1, Horvei’s seat
assemblies (sleeves 13) are “moved in one direction toward the housing in
order to effect sealing with the housing,” and, in Figure 5, the seat
assemblies are moved “in the opposite direction in order to bring the seat
assemblies toward the valve element, which moves the seat assemblies into
further sealing contact with the valve element, especially at the end faces of
the seat assemblies toward the center of the valve.” Id. at 13.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation “ignores the verb
bring” in claim 1. Reply Br. 2. Appellant submits that “sleeves 13 are in
continual sealing contact with the valve element 3, 4,” and, thus, “[r]otation
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

5
of the gear assemblies does not bring the seat assemblies into sealing
contact with the valve element,’ as required by claim 1.” Id.
Considering claim 1 as a whole, in light of Appellant’s Specification,
Appellant has the better position as to the correct interpretation of claim 1.
Appellant’s seat assemblies 12 and 13 are provided in bores 10 and 11 and
are movable between a first position (Fig. 3) further away from the center of
housing 1, in which they are not in contact with ball valve element 3,
thereby allowing insertion or removal of ball valve element 3 into or out of
cavity 4, and a second position closer to the center of housing 1, in which
they are in sealing contact with ball valve element 3. See Spec. 4:1–5:13.
Throughout this movement, the outer portions of Appellant’s seat assemblies
12 and 13 are always disposed within bores 10 and 11 and engaged with an
inner surface of each bore. See id. at 4:4–11. However, sleeves 13 move
into and out of sealing contact with ball valve element 3.
Thus, in Appellant’s disclosed invention, the gear assemblies are
configured to rotate in a first direction to move the seat assemblies away
from, and out of contact with, the valve element, to permit insertion or
removal of the valve element, and to rotate in a second direction to move the
seat assemblies in a second direction to bring the seat assemblies from a
position in which they are out of contact with the valve element into sealing
contact with the valve element. Although claim 1 does not expressly recite
that the movement in the first direction away from the valve element takes
the seat assemblies out of sealing contact with the valve element, the use of
the term “bring” in association with the movement in the second direction,
when read in light of the underlying disclosure in Appellant’s Specification
and drawings and the context of claim 1 as a whole, reasonably conveys that
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

6
rotation of the gear assemblies in the second direction moves the seat
assemblies from a position in which the seat assemblies are not in sealing
contact with the valve element to a position in which the seat assemblies are
in sealing contact with the valve element.3
Horvei discloses that “sleeve 13 is guided by means of its internal
circumference against the body in the lower ball member 4 and can be
moved backwards and forwards along its own axis by means of a suitable
device,” wherein one such suitable device includes rack 14, which moves up
and down to rotate gear wheels 15 mounted in lower ball member 4 to cause
translation of rack-shaped parts 16 on each side of sleeves 13, thereby
moving sleeves 13 either outward to the operative position shown in Figure
1 or inward to the retracted position shown in Figure 5. Horvei, col. 5, l. 61–
col. 6, l. 19. In other words, Horvei’s sleeves 13 are in contact with lower
ball member 4 throughout the full range of their movement in the axial
direction. To the extent that this contact is sealing contact, sleeves 13
remain in sealing contact with lower ball member 4 in all positions,
regardless of the direction in which they are moved.
Moreover, Horvei discloses that, in their outer, operating position
shown in Figures 1–3, they provide “a leakage free connection via packings
23 between the lower ball member 4 and the openings in the valve housing

3 Moreover, the recitation of “first and second seat assemblies, one mounted
within each of the co-axial bores,” as distinguished from being mounted
within or to the ball valve element, for example, provides additional context
for this recitation in claim 1 of the gear assemblies being configured to move
the seat assemblies to bring the seat assemblies into sealing contact with the
valve element, and is consistent with Appellant’s assertion regarding the
recitation “to bring the seat assemblies into sealing contact with the valve
element.”
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

7
1.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 30–34. This disclosure conveys that Horvei’s sleeves 13
are in sealing contact with lower ball member 4 in their outer position.
Thus, rotation of the gear assemblies to move them in a second direction
opposite the first direction (i.e., in an inward direction toward lower ball
member 4), does not bring sleeves 13 into sealing contact with the valve
element as recited, and properly construed, in claim 1.4
Having been apprised of error by Appellant’s argument, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or its dependent claims 5 and 8,
as being anticipated by Horvei.
Obviousness—Hurst, Matthews, and Hartmann
Hurst, the starting point for the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1–6, 8, and 9, is not “a top entry ball valve” and lacks a housing
including a top opening disposed substantially transverse to the axis of the
co-axial bores as required in independent claims 1 and 9. See Ans. 13
(acknowledging that Hurst’s valve is not a top entry ball valve); see also
Final Act. 5 (finding that Hurst lacks a housing including a top opening
disposed substantially transverse to the axis of the co-axial bores, as well as
the ball valve being sized to be received through such top opening).5

4 Notably, claim 1 recites movement “to bring the seat assemblies into
sealing contact with the valve element,” not into further sealing contact with
the valve element. See Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). Thus, even assuming
a preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that, in Figure
5, Horvei’s seat assemblies (sleeves 13) are moved “into further sealing
contact with the valve element, especially at the end faces of the seat
assemblies toward the center of the valve” (Ans. 13), this would not satisfy
the claim language.
5 We understand the Examiner’s statement in the Answer to be effectively a
withdrawal of the Examiner’s statement on page 5 of the Final Action that
“Hurst discloses a top entry ball valve”).
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

8
Further, the Examiner finds that Hurst’s valve comprises only one seat
assembly (annular member 48 and seal 56), disposed on one side of ball 21,
and, thus, lacks “first and second assemblies for the seat assemblies, gear
assemblies[,] and rotatable drive on either side of the ball” as called for in
claims 1 and 9. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner relies on Matthews for a teaching to provide “first and
second seat assemblies (26) respectively on either side of a ball (20) and
similar associated components to move the seats on either side of the ball.”
Final Act. 5. In view of Matthews, the Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to modify Hurst’s valve “by essentially duplicating the seat
assembly, gear assembly[,] and rotatable drive such that these components
are located on either side of the ball” to permit independent adjustment of
the tightness of the seals against the ball on either side, to render the valve
usable with flow in either direction with the same sealing, and to prevent
movement of the ball toward upstream seal 42, thereby forming “a more
positive engagement with the ball without having to account for any axial
movement of the ball.” Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds that “Hartmann teaches it was known in the art to
have [a] top entry ball valve while still allowing for a threaded gear
arrangement (16, 15) to adjust a valve seat assembly by having the worm
located at the bottom of the valve housing (see fig. 1).” Final Act. 6
(emphasis added); see Ans. 14 (repeating this finding). Based on this
finding, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious
to further modify Hurst by modifying the housing so that the
ball is insertable through the top of the housing (as thus
insertable transverse/perpendicular to the first axis extending
along the fluid flow path) by, for instance, having the worms
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

9
located at the bottom of the housing and away from the
removable bonnet as taught by Hartmann in order to allow a
user to easily remove and repair or replace the ball valve
through the top of the housing while the assembly remains in
place.
Final Act. 6.
For the reasons set forth on pages 18–20 of the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s finding as to the teachings of Hartmann is incorrect.
Hartmann’s worm screws 16 mesh with external gear teeth on threaded
sleeves 15, which surround valve seat sleeves 7 (i.e., the “seat assemblies”),
to press sleeves 15 axially against sealing rings 12 by rotating sleeves 15
with respect to valve seat sleeves 7. Hartmann, col. 3, ll. 18–23. Hartmann
provides spring washers 10 to exert an axial force on valve seat sleeves 7 to
press valve seat sleeves 7 against valve head 1. Id. at col. 2, l. 67–col. 3,
l. 3; col. 3, ll. 31–36. Hartmann explains that
a pressing of the seating portion of the valve seat sleeve 7
against the valve head 1 by means of the spring 10 with the
intermediary components 13, 12 and 15 is not affected by the
worm gear assembly 15, 16 which controls the pressing force
on the sealing ring 12.
Id. at col. 3, ll. 31–36.
Thus, Hartmann does not teach having a top entry ball valve while
still allowing for a threaded gear arrangement to adjust the valve seat
assembly by having the worm located at the bottom of the valve housing as
the Examiner states on page 6 of the Final Action and on page 14 of the
Answer. Rather, Hartmann provides spring washers to bias the valve seat
assemblies (valve seat sleeves 7) resiliently against the ball valve element
(valve head 1) so that the ball valve element may be removed through the
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

10
top of the housing by loosening closure plug screws 17 and removing
closure plug 4. See Hartmann, col. 3, ll. 36–39. Inasmuch as the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness is predicated on this incorrect
finding, the Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational underpinnings.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish a sustainable
case that Hurst, Matthews, and Hartmann render obvious the subject matter
of independent claims 1 and 9, or claims 2–6 and 8 depending from claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–6, 8, and 9 as being
unpatentable over Hurst, Matthews, and Hartmann.
Obviousness—Eminger and Matthews
Appellant groups claims 1, 6, and 9 together in contesting the
rejection based on Eminger and Matthews. Appeal Br. 23. We review this
rejection on the basis of claim 1, and claims 6 and 9 stand or fall with claim
1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single
claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of
claims argued together).
The Examiner finds that Eminger discloses a top entry ball valve
substantially as recited in claim 1, but that “Eminger does not appear to
disclose first and second assemblies for the seat assemblies, gear assemblies
and rotatable drives on either side of the ball.” Final Act. 10. The Examiner
finds that
Matthews teaches it was known in the art to have a ball
valve assembly with first and second seat assemblies (26)
respectively on either side of a ball (20) and similar associated
components to move the seats on either side of the ball (such as
the cam followers and cam slots, see abstract and also fig. 1
showing similar components on either side of the ball).
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

11
Id. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify
Eminger’s valve “by essentially duplicating the seat assembly, gear
assembly[,] and rotatable drive such that these components are located on
either side of the ball,” in view of Matthews’s teaching of “a similar ball
valve with similar seating components on both sides of the ball.” Id. at
10–11. The Examiner explains that the reasons for doing so would have
been to permit independent adjustment of the tightness of the seals against
the ball on either side and to make the valve more versatile by allowing fluid
flow in either direction with the same sealing. Id. at 11.
Appellant argues that the disclosures of Eminger and Matthews “are
fundamentally incompatible.” Appeal Br. 23. More specifically, Appellant
asserts that “Eminger does not provide a dynamic arrangement wherein the
position of the seat 230 is dynamically adjust[ed] during rotation of the ball
relative to the valve,” and, in contrast, the cammed surfaces and sliding
contact of Matthews “move the seal back and forth relative to the seat rings
26 to maintain contact as the orientation of the ball valve changes.” Id.; see
also Reply Br. 5 (asserting that Matthews’s seat rings 26 “are not outwardly
movable relative to the ball 20; the forward faces 28 of the seat rings 26 are
maintained in constant contact with the ball 20”).
Appellant’s assertions regarding Matthews do not appear to be
correct. Matthews teaches that, with the configuration of slots 56 in cam
disc 54,
cam rollers 58 will be pulled radially inward to lock the seat
rings 26 into firm engagement with the ball at both the full open
and the full closed positions of the valve ball 20 and that the
seat rings 26 will be retracted from the ball surface in
intermediate positions to facilitate rotary operation of the valve
ball.
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

12
Matthews, col. 3, ll. 16–23 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s
assertion, Matthews’s seat rings 26 appear to be retracted from the ball
surface, rather than maintaining contact with the ball surface, as the
orientation of the ball changes.
Moreover, Appellant’s argument is inapposite because it appears to
presume a bodily incorporation of Matthews’s seat ring adjustment
mechanism into Eminger.6 The Examiner does not propose incorporating a
camming disc as taught by Matthews into Eminger’s valve. Rather, as the
Examiner emphasizes, “Matthews has merely been used to teach it was
known in the art to have similar seating assemblies on either side of a rotary
valve member.” Ans. 15 (citing Final Act. 10–11). Such a modification
would not appear to be in conflict with Eminger, which discloses “at least
one seat assembly 20” (Eminger, col. 3, ll. 56–57), thereby leaving open the
possibility of more than one seat assembly.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Eminger and Matthews.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 6 and 9,
which fall with claim 1, as being unpatentable over Eminger and Matthews.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Horvei, and the rejection of claims 1–6,

6 “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citations omitted). “Rather, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having
ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 1333.
Appeal 2020-006040
Application 15/479,936

13
8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst, Matthews,
and Hartmann. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 9 as being
unpatentable over Eminger and Matthews.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 8 102(a)(1) Horvei 1, 5, 8
1–6, 8, 9 103 Hurst, Matthews,
Hartmann
1–6, 8, 9
1, 6, 9 103 Eminger,
Matthews
1, 6, 9
Overall
Outcome
1, 6, 9 2–5, 8

PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART