Ex Parte Andersson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2013

11663016 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2013)

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.
11/663,016 03/15/2007 Kurt Andersson AC-117 1291
7590 10/29/2013
Mark P. Stone
Attorney at Law
400 Columbus Avenue
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
LOPEZ, MICHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2013 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 KURT ANDERSSON and JORGEN RODERT
____________________

Appeal 2011-013543
Application 11/663,016
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013543
Application 11/663,016

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Andersson (US 6,371,222
B1; issued Apr. 16, 2002) and Piras (US 5,392,865; issued Feb. 28, 1995).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a percussion device of the
type that is included in rock drilling machines.” Spec. 1:1-2. Claims 1 and
5 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. Percussion device for rock drilling machines including a
machine housing, a forwards and backwards movable
percussion piston in a cylinder bore in the machine housing,
and a reciprocatingly movable valve body in the machine
housing, said percussion piston being adapted to subject a tool
to impacts, and said percussion piston including a first and a
second percussion piston driving surface intended to be
subjected to pressure in order to drive the percussion piston
forwards and backwards, said valve body including a first valve
body driving surface and a second valve body driving surface,
wherein pressurizing the first valve body driving surface tends
to drive the valve body in a first direction and pressurizing the
second valve body driving surface tends to drive the valve body
in a second direction, said valve body being arranged, over a
first channel arranged in the machine housing, to connect at
least the second of the percussion piston driving surfaces
alternately to a pressure source or to low pressure, wherein the
second valve body driving surface is connected, dependent on
the position of the percussion piston, either to the pressure
source or, over a valve device for creating a counter pressure, to
the low pressure in a tank for reducing the time necessary for
Appeal 2011-013543
Application 11/663,016

3
the valve body to change direction of movement between said
first and second directions, said valve device being positioned
in a second channel connecting the cylinder bore with the tank.

OPINION
The Examiner found that Andersson discloses the percussion device
of independent claim 1, except a valve device connected and positioned as
claimed. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner found that Piras discloses a valve device
(pressure regulator 9) positioned in a channel connecting the cylinder bore
(medium pressure circuit 5) and the tank (return circuit 8) that ensures the
flow of fluid discharged from the cylinder bore (medium pressure circuit 5)
to the tank (return circuit 8) is constant. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner concluded
that it would have been obvious to modify Andersson’s device by adding a
valve device as disclosed by Piras. Id.
The Examiner reasoned that the proposed modification would ensure
the discharge of fluid through the valve is a constant flow. Ans. 5-7.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that by providing such constant flow, Piras’s valve device
(pressure regulator 9) would provide a “counter pressure” that “would aid in
controlling the fluid discharge of Andersson’s device, thereby, preventing the
fluid drop on Andersson’s discharge channels and reducing the time
necessary for the valve body to change direction of movement.” Ans. 8.
The Examiner elaborated that such modification would have provided the
predictable result of ensuring constant fluid flow to the lower pressure tank
in Andersson’s device. Ans. 6.
However, contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5-7), Piras does
not disclose that pressure regulator 9 ensures constant fluid flow. Rather, as
Appeal 2011-013543
Application 11/663,016

4
the nomenclature implies, Piras’s pressure regulator 9 maintains a constant
pressure (a medium pressure at a predetermined value). Piras, col. 4, ll. 40-
46. Therefore, the Examiner’s reasoning, namely that the addition of Piras’s
valve device (pressure regulator 9) to Andersson’s percussion device would
have provided constant flow of fluid, lacks a rational underpinning. See
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.
As such, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2-4.
Independent claim 5 is similar to independent claim 1 in that it calls
for a valve device for creating counter pressure. Here, instead of finding that
Piras’s valve device (pressure regulator 9) provides constant flow, the
Examiner changes course to find that Piras’s valve device (pressure regulator
9) ensures that the pressure of fluid discharged is constant. Ans. 6-7. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to add Piras’s valve
device (pressure regulator 9) to Andersson’s percussion device “to ensure
that the pressure of the fluid discharged is constant.” Ans. 7.
The Examiner’s reasoning explains what Piras’s valve device would
do (ensure that the pressure of fluid discharged is constant). However, the
Examiner has not provided adequate reasoning based on a rational
underpinning to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to modify Andersson’s percussion device to reach the subject matter
of independent claim 5. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 5.

Appeal 2011-013543
Application 11/663,016

5
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5.

REVERSED

Klh