11420132 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 7, 2012)

Ex Parte Castaneda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 7, 2012

11420132 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/420,132 05/24/2006 Hector J. Castaneda HEATE-48763 1494 26252 7590 09/07/2012 KELLY & KELLEY, LLP 6320 CANOGA AVENUE SUITE 1650 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 EXAMINER SELLS, JAMES D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/07/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte HECTOR J. CASTANEDA and JORGE RAMIREZ ____________________ Appeal 2011-009268 Application 11/420,132 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009268 Application 11/420,132 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants state that the invention relates to the attachment of pipes and thermoplastic fitting components by means of fusion welding. (Spec. Para. [0001].) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A fitting for use in the fusion welding of mating thermoplastic components, comprising: a body defining a passageway therethrough and configured for interference fit reception around a mating thermoplastic component; and a weld bead chamber disposed about a portion of the body to receive excess thermoplastic material resulting from a fusion weld joining the body to the mating thermoplastic component, wherein the weld bead chamber comprises a protrusion around an outer perimeter of the body, the protrusion having a recess oriented toward an end of the body. (Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix1 17.) THE REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 15, 16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Michalski (US 6,000,482, issued December 14, 1999) in view of Villyard (US 1 Appeal Brief filed January 12, 2011, hereinafter “App. Br.” and “Claims App’x,” respectively. Appeal 2011-009268 Application 11/420,132 3 4,278,424, issued July 14, 1981). (Examiner’s Answer, dated March 30, 2011, “Ans.” 3-6.)2 II. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Michalski in view of Villyard and in further view of Gardner (US 5,685,571, issued November 11, 1997). (Ans. 7.) III. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Michalski in view of Villyard and in further view of Patriarca et al. (US 3,078,551, issued February 26, 1963). (Ans. 7-8.) ISSUE Appellants present similar arguments for Rejections II and III as for Rejection I. (App. Br. 15-16.) Thus, our discussion will focus on Rejection I. The dispositive issue on appeal is: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Michalski discloses a body configured for interference fit reception around a mating thermoplastic component and a weld bead chamber as claimed? DISCUSSION Regarding the recitation in claim 1 of “configured for interference fit reception around a mating thermoplastic component,” the Examiner found that Figure 6 of Michalski depicts an interference fit. (Ans. 4.) Regarding 2 Claims 9, 12, and 17 were also subject to this rejection. (Final Office Action, dated October 26, 2010, “Final” 2-7.) However, in the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of these claims (Ans. 2) and indicated that claims 9 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, and that claim 12 is allowed (Ans. 8). Appeal 2011-009268 Application 11/420,132 4 the recited weld bead chamber, the Examiner found that Michalski discloses a weld flash receiving groove. (Ans. 3-4.) Appellants argue that Figure 6 does not illustrate an interference fit, but that Figure 6 illustrates an integral formation of the end coupling with a stress spreader and a friction weld joint between the end coupling and the pipe element. (App. Br. 12.) Appellants argue that the “interference fit” disclosed in the accompanying text is disclosed in relation to the joining of the stress spreader to the end coupling and not to the friction weld joint of the pipe element to the end coupling. (App. Br. 12.) We agree with Appellants that neither Figure 6 nor the text pointed to by the Examiner discloses the claimed interference fit. In this regard, Figure 6 of Michalski depicts two joints. A discussion of both joints is necessary to fully understand the deficiencies of Michalski. The first joint in Michalski exists between the end coupling (36) and the pipe element (19) (“pipe element joint”). (Col. 4, ll. 30-52; Figs. 4, 6.) In relation to the pipe element joint, Michalski discloses a weld flash receiving groove (50) that is centered about the weld interface (32). (Col. 4, ll. 23-28; Figs. 4, 6.) The weld flash receiving groove (50) is designed to receive weld flash (34). (Col. 4, ll. 23-25; Figs. 4-6.) The weld flash (34) disclosed in Michalski is the result of inertial welding of the end coupling (36) to the pipe element (19). (Col. 4, ll. 26-28, 35-39.) Michalski discloses a clearance of approximately 0.0015 inches between the contacting portion (46) of the stress spreader and the inner diameter of the pipe element (19), in order to accomplish this inertial welding, “without interference” from the stress spreader. (Col. 4, ll. 3-11, 26-28, 48-52; Figs. 3, 4.) Michalski discloses that the slight clearance between the contacting portion (46) of the Appeal 2011-009268 Application 11/420,132 5 stress spreader (42) and the interior dimension of the pipe element (19) allows the stress spreader to provide sufficient stress shielding to significantly increase strength of the welded assembly. (Col. 4, ll. 48-52.) As discussed in Appellants’ Specification, an interference fit requires that the diameters of the fitting and the mating pipe are so close such that there is substantial surface contact around the perimeter of the fitting. (Spec. Paras. [0033], [0035], [0041].) Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the clearance between the contacting portion (46) of the stress spreader (42) and the interior dimension of the pipe element (19) required by Michalski prevents an interference fit between the pipe element and the stress spreader. Moreover, the weld flash receiving groove (50) would not comprise a protrusion around an outer perimeter of the body as required by the claims. The weld flash receiving groove (50) does not protrude around an outer perimeter of the body (either end coupling (36) or stress spreader (42) joined to end coupling (36)), but rather is formed interior to the perimeter when the counterbore (47) is positioned over a reduced diameter section (48) of the stress spreader. (Col. 4, ll. 17-20; Figs. 3-5.) Thus, the first joint disclosed in Michalski does not include a body configured for an interference fit or the weld bead chamber as recited in the claims. The second joint in Michalski is between the end coupling (36) and the stress spreader (42) (“stress spreader joint”). (Col. 4, ll. 30-60; Figs. 4, 6.) Michalski discloses that the stress spreader joint can be an interference fit. (Col. 4, ll. 57-60.) However, Michalski does not disclose a weld bead chamber accompanying the stress spreader joint that is structured in such a way to receive excess thermoplastic material resulting from a fusion weld Appeal 2011-009268 Application 11/420,132 6 joining the stress spreader (42) and the end coupling (36). See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 959 (CCPA 1976) (noting the structure of components can be claimed in terms of the interrelationship of the components). As discussed supra, the only disclosure in Michalski of an opening that could be fairly characterized as a weld bead chamber is the weld flash receiving groove (50), which is centered about the weld interface (32) and designed to receive weld flash (34) from the friction weld between end coupling (36) and pipe element (19). Even assuming the weld flash receiving groove (50) could act to receive excess material resulting from a fusion weld between the end coupling (36) and the stress spreader (42), the weld flash receiving groove does not constitute a protrusion around the outer perimeter of either the end coupling (36) or the stress spreader (42), for the same reasons discussed supra. Thus, the second joint disclosed in Michalski does not include a body configured for an interference fit or the weld bead chamber as recited in the claims. As a result, we agree with Appellants that Michalski does not disclose the interference fit and weld bead chamber recited in the claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections. REVERSED cu