The Viking CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 13, 20202020003001 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation