Ex Parte Chiproot

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2016

13116176 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/116,176 05/26/2011
7590 03/25/2016
David Klein
DEKEL PATENT LTD.
Beit HaRofim
18 Menuha VeNahala Street, Room 27
REHOVOT,
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
A vi Chiproot
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.
2090KRS-US 4927
EXAMINER
DUNWOODY, AARON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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 A VI CHIPROOT
Appeal2014-001684
Application 13/116, 17 6
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Avi Chiproot ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 in this application. The Board has
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Krausz Industries Development Ltd. as the
real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001684
Application 13/116, 17 6
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and it recites:
1. A multilayer annular clamp comprising:
a plurality of sealing rings radially spaced from one
another, at least two of said sealing rings comprising L-shaped
axial-plane cross-sections nested in one another, an innermost
one of said sealing rings being operative to contact an outer
contour of the pipe;
two clamp members disposed around a portion of said
sealing rings; and
a fastener, comprising a shank, operative to fasten said
clamp members towards each other in a direction along said
shank so as to apply a radially-inward clamping force on the
innermost sealing ring that contacts the pipe so that said
multilayer annular clamp clamps the pipe.
Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 2
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Krausz '955 (US 7,243,955 B2, iss. July 17, 2007).
ANALYSIS
A. Indefiniteness Rejection and Objection to Drawings
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7 as being indefinite in reciting
"sealing rings comprising L-shaped axial-plane cross-sections" (claim 1) and
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Krausz '955, and the rejection of claims 1-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Krausz '626 (US 7,997,626 B2,
iss. Aug. 16, 2011 ). Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2014-001684
Application 13/116, 17 6
"a double L-shaped (U-shaped) cross-section" (claim 2). Final Act. 3. The
Examiner determines "the claims are misdescriptive and/or inaccurate"
because Figures 3 and 4 of the application "do not illustrate L-shaped and
double L-shaped seal rings in full cross section." Id. (emphasis added); see
also id. at 6-7 (referring to "complete cross-section of the seal rings" shown
in Figures). The Examiner states: "Appellant intended to recite that only the
upper (or lower) half of the axial-plane cross-section constitutes the L-shape
and double L-shape, but this is not what claim 1 recites." Ans. 3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1-
7 as indefinite. Br. 5-6. "The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is whether 'those skilled in the art would understand what
is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification."' Ex Parte
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1210 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (quoting
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citations omitted)).
Figures 2 and 3 of the present application are reproduced below, with
four ellipses we have added to Figure 3 for reference:
10 12A 16
\ 10 14 20
' I 26 28 c 30
12 FIG. 2 FIG. 3
3
Appeal2014-001684
Application 13/116, 17 6
These Figures illustrate clamp 10 including a plurality of sealing rings 12,
with Figure 2 being a perspective view, and Figure 3 being a sectional view
taken along lines C-C in Figure 2. 3 Spec. 2: 12-15, 2:24--25. The
Specification describes the illustrated structure as follows:
[T]he sealing rings 12 have L-shaped axial-plane cross-sections
nested in one another .... [T]he right side set of sealing rings in
Fig. 3 are L-shaped in axial-plane cross-section, whereas the left
side set of sealing rings in Fig. 3 are double-L-shaped (U-shaped)
in axial-plane cross-section. In other words, the U-shape is
another form of the L-shape, combining mirror images of two
L-shapes.
Spec. 2:31-3:2.
In light of this description, we determine a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand the L-shape of claim 1 and the double L-shape I
U-shape of claim 2 refer only to one of the two parts of a sealing ring that
pass through the cross-sectional plane. That is, in the example of Figure 3,
the claims refer to the shapes contained by only one of the four ellipses, with
L-shapes on the right side and U-shapes on the left side. The Examiner's
reading that the claimed shapes necessarily refer to both of the two parts of a
sealing ring that pass through the cross-sectional plane - either the two left
ellipses combined, or the two right ellipses combined - is inconsistent with
the written description of Figure 3. We, therefore, do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-7 as indefinite.
Appellant further seeks our review of the Examiner's objection to the
application's drawings as failing to show the L-shaped and double L-shaped
axial-plane cross-sections recited in claims 1 and 2. Final Act. 2; Br. 5---6.
3 We note that the arrows in Figure 2 should be pointed in the opposite
direction to reflect the proper relationships among Figures 1, 2 and 3.
4
Appeal2014-001684
Application 13/116, 17 6
As noted by the Examiner, a traversal of an objection to drawings is
ordinarily reviewable by petition to the Director, not by appeal to the Board.
Ans. 3. Nonetheless, to the extent that the objection turns on the same issues
as the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, our
decision with respect to that rejection likewise is dispositive as to the
corresponding objection.
B. Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Krausz '955 discloses,
as recited in claim 1, "sealing rings comprising L-shaped axial-plane
cross-sections." Br. 6. Appellant asserts "the Examiner has not pointed out
where he thinks [Krausz '955] has two nested L-shaped seals," and seals 28
and 30 in Krausz '955 "are not L-shaped in cross-section." Id. at 7. In this
regard, Figure 1 of Krausz '955 is reproduced below:
This Figure illustrates a pipe connector 10 that includes an annular sealing
element 26 formed with one or more cylindrical layers 28 nested within a
primary outer sealing ring 30. Krausz '995, 3:52-60, 4:20-38. Further,
5
Appeal2014-001684
Application 13/116, 17 6
each cylindrical layer 28 may include a barbed projection 38 to engage a
corresponding recess 40 on an adjacent layer 28, to oppose the effects of
pressure within connector 10. Id. at 5:3-9.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner cites Figure 1 of Krausz '955
as disclosing each and every limitation of claim 1, but does not specify
which structure(s) of Figure 1 correspond to which claim element(s). Final
Act. 3--4, 7. In the Answer, the Examiner adds that Figure 1 of Krausz '955
illustrates "seal 28 as L-shaped as much as Appellant's seal represents an
L-shaped seal," as "the barb defines the short leg of the 'L' ." Ans. 4.
We determine the Examiner's finding that Krausz '995 discloses an
L-shaped seal 28 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The
cross-section of cylindrical layers 28 shown in Figure 1 is simply not
L-shaped, even considering the barbed projections of layers 28. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3-7 as
anticipated by Krausz '955.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 as indefinite is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-7 as anticipated by
Krausz '9 5 5 is reversed.
REVERSED
APJ Initials:
LLS
Paralegal Initials:
6