The Viking Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 13, 2020

2020003001 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 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.
15/146,856 05/04/2016 Michael J. OLDHAM 6065-000124-US 7563
27572 7590 11/13/2020
HARNESS DICKEY (TROY)
5445 Corporate Dr.
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
EXAMINER
GREENLUND, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2020 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):
sto-ptomail@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. OLDHAM
____________________

Appeal 2020-003001
Application 15/146,856
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the “disclosure relates to a sprinkler
assembly” for use in a fire extinguisher system. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3. Claim 1 is

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is “The
Viking Corporation.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003001
Application 15/146,856

2
the sole independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce independent
claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims.
1. A concealed sprinkler, comprising:
a sprinkler body having a flow passage therethrough with
an inlet end and an outlet end;
a closure device secured at the outlet end of the flow
passage by a heat responsive trigger;
a deflector assembly including a deflector plate and a
button secured to an upstream side of the deflector plate, said
deflector assembly being movably supported to the sprinkler
body by at least one arm, said button defining an aperture that
extends unobstructed all the way through the button from an
upstream side to a downstream side, wherein said button
includes a flange portion that is staked within an aperture in the
deflector plate and the aperture extends through the flange
portion.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Polan2 and Werner;3 and
II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Polan,
Werner, and Cordell.4
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
a deflector assembly including a deflector plate and a
button secured to an upstream side of the deflector plate, said
deflector assembly being movably supported to the sprinkler

2 Polan, US 2009/0056958 A1, published Mar. 5, 2009.
3 Werner, US 4,091,873, issued May 30, 1978.
4 Cordell et al., US 2008/0257564 A1, published Oct. 23, 2008.
Appeal 2020-003001
Application 15/146,856

3
body by at least one arm, said button defining an aperture that
extends unobstructed all the way through the button from an
upstream side to a downstream side.
Claims App. (emphasis added). To support the rejection, the Examiner
relies on Polan to disclose much of what claim 1 recites. Answer 3. More
specifically, the Examiner relies on Polan’s conical member 1020 to disclose
the claimed button, and on Polan’s deflector 145 to teach the claimed
deflector plate. Id. According to the Examiner, “[h]owever, Polan fails to
disclose said button defining an aperture that extends unobstructed all the
way through the button from an upstream side to a downstream side,” as
claimed. Id. Nonetheless, according to the Examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to utilize the central
aperture of Werner into the button of Polan, allowing the fire
extinguishing substance to be applied in not only a def[l]ected
area around the sprinklers outlet, but also to the area directly
beneath the outlet. This would allow for the fluid to reach a
larger area for the purpose of better extinguishing a fire.
Id. at 4.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner’s rejection is in error
because
[o]ne having ordinary skill in the art readily knows that
the addition of an aperture as proposed by the [E]xaminer
would improperly modify the dispersal pattern of the fire
protection sprinkler of Polan. Further, there is no suggestion
that the sprinkler of Polan would benefit from having an
aperture in the conical member 1020, as claimed.
[Appellant] . . . submit[s] that the deflector 145 and conical
member 1020 of Polan are specifically designed to provide a
desired spray distribution for controlling or suppressing a fire in
a vicinity of the sprinkler assembly. [Appellant] . . . submit[s]
that the slots 1040 in the outer edges 1080 of the deflector 145
are intended to distribute the discharged fluid directly below
and around the sprinkler assembly in a necessary pattern to
Appeal 2020-003001
Application 15/146,856

4
control or suppress a fire. Accordingly, there is no rational
basis to modify the conical member/button 1020 to include an
aperture that extends through the button and the flange portion
as claimed[,] since there is no suggestion that such a
modification would improve the performance thereof and[,] in
fact, the dispersion benefit and lodgment prevention achieved
by a conical tip would be undesirably eliminated.
Reply Br. 8–9. Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
Polan describes specific details, including sizes and geometries, of
conical member 1020, and these details do not describe an aperture as
claimed. For example, Polan’s paragraph 45 sets forth the following:
The deflector 145, which is shown in detail in
F[igures] 10 and 11, has an opening 1010 in the middle that is
configured to receive a conical member 1020. The conical
member 1020, which has an outer diameter of 0.7 inches and an
included angle of 130°, faces the output orifice 130 to assist in
the dispersion of the output fluid and to improve the stability of
the deployed deflector 145. . . . The conical member 1020 also
helps prevent the seal cap 135 and other ejected components
from becoming lodged behind the deflector 145 upon
deployment of the sprinkler.
Polan ¶ 45 (bold omitted). Thus, Polan carefully describes specific details of
conical member 1020, which achieve specific results (i.e., “assist in the
dispersion of the output fluid,” “improve the stability of the . . . deflector,”
and “prevent the seal cap . . . and other ejected components from becoming
lodged behind the deflector . . . upon deployment of the sprinkler.”). It is
unclear to what extent these specific results of Polan would cease to exist by
removing even at least a portion of conical member 1020’s conical surface
to form an aperture through the conical member, as the Examiner proposes
to do.
Appeal 2020-003001
Application 15/146,856

5
The Examiner reasons that the proposed modification “would allow
for the fluid to reach a larger area for the purpose of better extinguishing a
fire.” Answer 4. However, the proposed modification would make
significant changes to Polan’s sprinkler. The Examiner states that these
changes will “allow[] the fire extinguishing substance to be applied in not
only a def[l]ected area around the sprinklers outlet, but also to the area
directly beneath the outlet.” Id. Nonetheless, it appears that the Examiner’s
proposed modification would change how fluid flows through Polan’s
sprinkler as well as impact the size of the deflected area. Notably, the
Examiner fails to explain adequately, on the record, how the size of the
deflected area would increase based on the proposed modification. It seems
that the Examiner merely presumes that the dispersal pattern would stay
exactly the same, but just deliver fluid directly below the sprinkler head. See
id. at 6 (“This does not inhibit the application of fluid as it is dispersed about
the conical structure, as both Werner and Polan disclose such a dispersion
occurring, but rather it permits fluid to be applied directly beneath the fire
extinguishing as well as deflected about it.”). That presumption relies more
on conjecture than technical reasoning.
For these reasons, the Examiner does not support adequately that it
would have been obvious to form an aperture, as claimed, through Polan’s
conical member 1020. Instead, it appears that the Examiner bases the
determination of obviousness on impermissible hindsight.
Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 3 and 5 that depend from, and the Examiner reject with,
claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003001
Application 15/146,856

6
Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claim 4
Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner does not
rely on Cordell to disclose anything that would remedy the above-discussed
deficiency in claim 1’s rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 4.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1
and 3–5.
In summary:
REVERSED
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5 103 Polan, Werner 1, 3, 5
4 103 Polan, Werner,
Cordell
4
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5