Stanley Paul. Evans et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 7, 2020

2018008041 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2020)

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.
13/668,633 11/05/2012 Stanley Paul EVANS 911-019.005-2/
FBGX0002US
5284
4955 7590 12/07/2020
WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP
BRADFORD GREEN, BUILDING 5
755 MAIN STREET
MONROE, CT 06468
EXAMINER
CARY, KELSEY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2020 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):
mail@warefressola.com
uspatents@warefressola.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STANLEY PAUL EVANS, FLORIN ROSCA,
GLENN EDWARD HUSE, and DONALD ARTHUR KAHN
____________

Appeal 2018-008041
Application 13/668,633
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, 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, 2, 4–10, and 12–16, which are all the
pending claims. Appeal Br. 1; Non-Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fluid
Handling LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008041
Application 13/668,633

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention “relates to a balancing valve; and
more particularly to a new technique for providing a flow rate scale field
calibration for such a balancing valve.” Spec., p. 1, ll. 9–11. Claims 1 and 9
are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A balance or flow limiting valve for allowing a user to
set a desired calibrated flow rate of a flow, comprising:
a valve body/member configured with a flow rate
indicator or scale containing settings each having a printed flow
rate calibrated in appropriate units of measure in volume per
time increment between minimum and maximum flow rate
positions and determined by calibrated flow characteristics of
the balance or flow limiting valve; and
a knob having a position indicator configured to move to
any continuous position on the flow rate indicator or scale
between the minimum and maximum flow rate positions in
response to force applied by a user to set a desired calibrated
flow rate of a flow for the balance or flow limiting valve, the
desired calibrated flow rate determined by a relationship
between the flow rate indicator or scale of the valve
body/member and the position indicator of the knob, so that the
desired calibrated flow rate of the flow is set by the user in one
operation by moving the knob to a desired position between the
minimum and maximum flow rate positions without consulting
a printed flow curve or other form of a balance calculator to
determine information about the desired flow rate of the flow of
the balance or flow limiting valve.

Appeal 2018-008041
Application 13/668,633

3
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Shelton WO 88/05159 July 14, 1988

REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1, 2, 4–10,
and 12–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Shelton. Non-Final Act. 4–8.

ANALYSIS
Appellant presents argument against the rejection of independent
claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 11–18), and relies on the same argument when
addressing independent claim 9 and their associated dependent claims (see
id. at 18–19). We select claim 1 as representative of the issues that
Appellant presents in this appeal, with claims 2, 4–10, and 12–16 standing or
falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner found that Shelton discloses all the elements as recited
in claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 4–5. Appellant argues that the invention
involves a unique combination of a valve body/member with a calibrated
scale and a knob having a position indicator configured to be moved by a
user when setting a desired flow rate and thereby actually set the flow rate of
the valve in a single operation, and that Shelton lacks this claimed feature.
See Appeal Br. 11–13. Specifically, Appellant urges that Shelton’s valve
has two separate sets of components for these tasks—one for setting the flow
rate and another for indicating the flow rate. See id. at 13–15; see also id.
Appeal 2018-008041
Application 13/668,633

4
at 15–18 (asserting that Shelton’s flow rate is determined via a calculation
rather than simply via a position on the setting knob of the valve).
After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellant’s
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the
identified disclosure of Shelton, which is supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. In particular, the Examiner’s finding that Shelton’s adjustment
knob 80 also moves position indicator 74 along scale 76 (see Non-Final
Act. 4–5 (referencing Shelton, Fig. 1)) sufficiently discloses the claimed
arrangement. See Ans. 7–8. The fact that Shelton also discloses an
additional gauge with flowmeter scale 102 and indicator needle 104, even if
this additional gauge offers higher precision, is not germane to the
Examiner’s anticipation finding.
Although we appreciate Appellant’s observation that Shelton’s
scale 76 is depicted without precise labels, the textual disclosure of Shelton
establishes that the scale would be indicated in “appropriate volumetric units
per time,” as would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art in order
for the scale to be useful to an operator. See Shelton, p. 8, ll. 27–29. Even if
this scale is not disclosed as having any particular level of precision, we note
that an examiner must constrain the review to the recitations of the claims
themselves (which, here, recite no details as to any particular precision
requirement—only that the scale be “calibrated in appropriate units of
measure in volume per time increment”). As stated by our reviewing court
in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “the name of the
game is the claim.” It is well established that limitations not appearing in
the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
Appeal 2018-008041
Application 13/668,633

5
Specification, details or other limitations from the Specification are not read
into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As the Examiner explains, Shelton sufficiently discloses the elements
recited in claim 1, including that the scale is based on flow characteristics of
the valve. See Ans. 8–9. In short, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 based on the reasoned positions set forth therein and in light of the
Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments. See Non-Final Act. 4–5;
Ans. 7–9. The remaining claims fall therewith.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–10, and
12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shelton.
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).

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–10,
12–16 102(b) Shelton
1, 2,
4–10,
12–16

AFFIRMED