14221563 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019)

Ex Parte Buhl et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 10, 2019

14221563 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/221,563 03/21/2014 35301 7590 04/12/2019 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP CITY PLACE II 185 ASYLUM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jan Maiboll Buhl 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 6495-0623 5637 EXAMINER WIBLIN, MATTHEW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/12/2019 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): patentdocket@ip-lawyers .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAN MAIBOLL BUHL, JORGEN MADS CLAUSEN, CHRISTENESPERSEN, LEIF HANSEN, JACOB MADSEN, BRIAN PETERSEN, SVEND ERIK THOMSEN, and JORGEN P. TODSEN Appeal2018-005146 Application 14/221,563 1 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER,Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-17, and21-25. We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify "miniBOOSTERHYDRAULICSA/S" as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-005146 Application 14/221,563 According to Appellants, "[t]he invention relates to a hydraulic system comprising a pressure source, an output, and a pressure booster arranged between the pressure source and the output." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1, with formatting added, as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A hydraulic system comprising a pressure source, an output, and a pressure booster arranged between the pressure source and the output, wherein an inactivating valve is provided for inactivating or activating said pressure booster, wherein said inactivating valve is arranged in parallel to said pressure booster, said inactivating valve opening to connect a booster input and a booster output thereby inactivating said booster and closing to disconnect the booster input and the booster output when activating said booster, wherein when said booster is inactivated by said inactivating valve, the pressure at the output corresponds to a pressure supplied by the pressure source. REJECTIONS AND PRIORART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1-3,6-8, 11-13, 17,21,22,and25under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Hansen et al. (US 2005/0178121 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2005) (hereinafter "Hansen"); II. Claims 9 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over HansenandDits (US 4,152,921,iss. May 8, 1979); 2 Appeal 2018-005146 Application 14/221,563 III. Claims 10 and24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Hansen and Thelen et al. (US 2011/0005221 Al, pub. Jan. 13, 2011) (hereinafter "Thelen"); IV. Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Hansen and Nomura et al. (US 6,581,379 B2, iss. June 24, 2003) (hereinafter "Nomura"); and V. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Hansen and Smith et al. (US 4,413,642, iss. Nov. 8, 1983) (hereinafter "Smith"). ANALYSIS Reiectionl As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, an "inactivating valve ... arranged in parallel to said pressure booster, said inactivating valve opening to connect a booster input and a booster output thereby inactivating said booster[,] and closing to disconnect the booster input and the booster output when activating said booster." Appeal Br. 23, Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 relies on Hansen's valves "17 A/17B/20A/20B" to disclose the claimed inactivating valve. See, e.g., Answer 3. Appellants argue that the Examiner errs because Hansen's valves do not disclose the above-discussed claim recitation. See Appeal Br. 9-16; see Reply Br. 2-7. Consistent with Appellants' argument, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection because the rejection lacks adequate support for certain factual fmdings upon which the rejection is based. 3 Appeal 2018-005146 Application 14/221,563 The Examiner does not point to an express disclosure in Hansen describing how valves "17 A/17B/20A/20B" open to connect a booster input and a booster output thereby inactivating the booster, and close to disconnect the booster input and the booster output when activating the booster. Instead, the Examiner relies primarily on Hansen's Figure 2 and paragraph 41, and provides a corresponding explanation of how the Examiner understands Hansen operates, to disclose this claim recitation. See, e.g., Answer4--5. By way of example, the Examiner explains Hansen's "[b ]ooster can only operate if check valves (17 A/20A) are closed[,] because ... valves ( 17 A/20A) connect the booster input and output and if they are open, the booster would be short circuited." Id. at 4. Putting aside that Hansen describes valve 20A as a controllable stop valve rather than a check valve, the Examiner's explanation appears to be opposite to Hansen's statement that check valve 1 7 A remains open during operation of booster 15 A- [ w ]hen, for example, ... valve 6 is actuated to assume the above illustrated position, hydraulic liquid flows at low pressure through ... low-pressure connector NA into ... intensifier [(i.e., booster)] 15A, is intensified therein, and is then discharged through ... check valve 16A to ... high-pressure connector HA . . . . [I]ntensifier 15A takes in through ... check valve 17 A liquid from ... low-pressure connector NA. Hansen ,r 36. Conversely, Hansen's paragraph 41 does not discuss anything related to the operation of either stop valve 20A or 20B. Id. ,r 41. To the extent that Hansen describes the operation of the stop valves, we agree with Appellants that stop valves 20A, 20B allow reverse flow past their respective pressure intensifiers 15A, 15B when the pressure 4 Appeal 2018-005146 Application 14/221,563 intensifiers 15 A, 15B are inactive. Closing Hansen's stop valve 20A or 20B when ... stop [valve] 20A or 20B is allowing the reverse flow of fluid would not activate the respective inactive pressure intensifier 15 A or 15B in Hansen's system. Rather, closing ... stop valve 20A or 20B would simply prevent the reverse flow of fluid past the intensifier. Appeal Br. 11; see Hansen ,r,r 35-36. Restated, opening or closing Hansen's stop valves 20A and 20B neither activate nor deactivate booster 15 A or 15B, but instead either permit reverse flow around booster 15 A or 15B or prevent that reverse flow. Thus, because the Examiner's rejection lacks a sufficient factual basis for claim 1 's anticipation rejection, we do not sustain the rejection. We also do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 21, or claims 2, 3, 6-8, 11-13, 17, 22, and 25 that depend from the independent claims. Reiections 11-V Claims 9, 10, 14--16, 23, and24 depend from independent claims 1 and 21, the rejection of which we do not sustain. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not rely on any other reference to remedy the above-discussed deficiency in the independent claim's rejection, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of these dependent claims. 5 Appeal 2018-005146 Application 14/221,563 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1-3, 6-17, and 21-25. REVERSED 6