12889622 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015)

Ex Parte Allen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 19, 2015

12889622 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015)

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. 12/889,622 09/24/2010 Stanley C. Allen 07.1007.04 6655 53189 7590 03/20/2015 Cooke Law Firm 2040 NORTH LOOP 336 WEST SUITE 123 CONROE, TX 77304 EXAMINER FRISTOE JR, JOHN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STANLEY C. ALLEN ____________________ Appeal 2013-001396 Application 12/889,622 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a flow control hemispherical wedge valve. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A valve comprising: a housing; a fluid inlet and fluid outlet in the housing; a valve seat within the housing; Appeal 2013-001396 Application 12/889,622 2 a hemi-wedge valve member mounted within the housing; the hemi-wedge valve member having an opening that cooperates with the valve seat to control fluid through the valve; and the opening being provided with a notch at the circumference of its leading edge. REJECTION Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Polon (US 4,989,833, issued Feb. 5, 1991). Ans. 3. OPINION The Examiner interprets Polon’s segment of a ball 3 as the recited “hemi-wedge valve member.” See Ans. 3. The only evidence cited by the Examiner in support of the Examiner’s proposed claim construction is the ability to dissect a portion of Polon’s segment of a ball, in an apparently arbitrary fashion, to find a wedge-like shape. See Ans. 4–5. Appellant’s Specification draws distinctions between ball, plug, gate or globe valves, and “hemi-wedge” valves. Spec. 1–2, paras. 3–6. The only structures in the record before us that evidence suggests that one skilled in the art would understand as hemi-wedge valves are those in Appellant’s Specification and those referenced therefrom. All such valvles are structurally and functionally distinguishable from the ball cited by the Examiner. Spec. 2, para. 6. For example, as Appellant correctly points out, the cited structure of Polon does not provide any type of wedging action. Reply Br. 1. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those Appeal 2013-001396 Application 12/889,622 3 skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The record before us lacks persuasive evidence that one skilled in the art would understand Polon’s segment of a ball 3 as the recited “hemi- wedge valve member.” 1 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. REVERSED mls 1 We note that we reach the narrow conclusion drawn above, that Polon’s segment of a ball 3 is not reasonably considered a “hemi-wedge valve member,” without opining on whether the structure expressly recited in claim 4 constitutes inherent characteristics of a “hemi-wedge valve member.” See, e.g., App. Br. 6–7. Resolution of the later issue may raise further issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four. See , e.g., Curtiss- Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We have not been fully briefed on the potential differentiation between claims 1 and 4, or the potential lack thereof, and do not express any opinion on this issue.