Ex Parte Cook et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 2012

11528710 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2012)

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.
11/528,710 09/27/2006 Matthew D. Cook 2006P20724US 5606
7590 07/16/2012
Elsa Keller
Legal Assistant, Intellectual Property Department
Siemens Corporation
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
MCALLISTER, STEVEN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2012 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 MATTHEW D. COOK and DEAN B. ANDERSON
__________

Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710
Technology Center 3700
___________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 2 -
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 3-12, and 21:1
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Day (US 4,873,873) and Ahmed (US
2004/0144849 A1);
2. Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kawai (US 4,926,903) and Ahmed; and
3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Day, Ahmed, and Marrero (US 2003/0118431 A1).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants disclose a technique for sensing the fluid flow rate of a
liquid or gas through a valve or damper. (Spec. 1; Abstract.) In an
embodiment using a damper (see Figs. 1-2), an actuator 16 rotates an output
shaft 36 to slide a drive rod 22, which, in turn, rotates the vanes 14
(“blades”) of the damper. (Spec. 7.) The damper includes a sensor module
20 that, in turn, includes a sensor device 40 comprising a strain gauge that
measures the torque or rotational strain on the output shaft 36 and a position
feedback (not shown) that measures the rotational position of the vanes 14.
(Spec. 10 and 12.) The flow rate is determined from the rotational strain on

1 The Interview Summary mailed April 9, 2009 indicates that claims 2 and
22-27 were canceled after Appellants filed their Appeal Brief. Claims 13-20
have also been canceled. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 3 -
the output shaft 36 and the rotational position of the vanes 14. (Spec. 9 and
11; Fig. 10.)
Claim 1, the only independent claim, defines the invention as follows:
1. A fluid flow control assembly comprising:
at least one flow control device movably secured
proximate to a structure through which fluid flows, the at least
one flow control device configured to at least partially regulate
fluid flow through the structure;
an actuator configured to control a position of the at least
one flow control device;
at least one rotatable mechanical element operably
coupled between the actuator and the at least one flow control
device; and
a sensor module coupled to a first of the at least one
rotatable mechanical element, the sensor module including a
sensor device operable to determine a fluid-flow induced force
on the first rotatable mechanical element; and
wherein the sensor module further includes a first
wireless communication circuit operable to communicate fluid-
flow induced force information to a second wireless
communication circuit.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, AND 12
OVER DAY AND AHMED
Day
Day discloses a damper that senses the flow rate of a gas. (Abstract.)
A lever 60 rotates upper and lower gates GU, GL of the damper. (Col. 3, ll.
1-10 and 35-37; sole figure.) An end of the lever 60 connects to a piston
arm 66 of a pneumatic cylinder 62, such that sliding the piston arm 66
rotates the lever 60 and gates GU, GL. (Col. 3, ll. 37-40; sole figure.) The
pneumatic strain of the cylinder 62 correlates to the rotational strain and
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 4 -
position of the gates GU, GL, which, in turn, correlate to the flow rate of the
gas. (Col. 1, l. 64 – col. 2, l. 2; col. 2, ll. 11-19; col. 3, l 55 – col. 4, l. 3; sole
figure.) Day’s system accordingly determines the gas flow rate from the
rotational position of the gates GU, GL and the pneumatic strain of the
cylinder 62, as determined by a pressure transducer PT measuring the air
pressure powering the cylinder 62. (Col. 3, l. 55 – col. 4, l. 3; sole figure.)
Contentions
Claim 1 is the only contested claim. (App. Br. 5-9.) Dependent
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 stand or fall therewith. (App. Br. 9.)
The Examiner cites Day as teaching all but the wireless
communication circuit of claim 1. (Ans. 4-5.) Appellants argue that Day
does not teach the claimed “sensor module coupled to a first of the at least
one rotatable mechanical element” (App. Br. 5-9 (citing the language of
claim 1, fourth limitation)) (emphasis added), which the Examiner
respectively reads on the Day’s lever 60 and pressure transducer PT (Ans.
4). According to Appellants (App. Br. 7 (emphasis in original)):
[A] first device can be reasonably said to be connected or
“coupled” to a second device when the two devices move
together or bear on each other, or if the two devices are at least
connected via intermediate connecting or linking elements that
have the primary purpose of being intermediate or connecting
elements. In the case of Day, however, the actuator 62 clearly
separates the transducer 78 from the lever element 60. The
actuator 62 translates from one form of force or energy to
another, and is not merely a coupling element. To this end, it
will be appreciated that the pressured air sensed by the pressure
transducer 78 of Day never contacts the lever element 60, and
the movement of the lever element 60 does not result in
movement of the pressure transducer 78.
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 5 -
The Examiner maintains, though, that the claim term “coupled”
may be interpreted more broadly, so as to mean “joined,” “linked,” or
connected.” (Ans. 12 (citing a general purpose dictionary definition)).
Issue
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred by improperly
interpreting the claim term “coupled” unreasonably broadly?
Analysis
We give claim terms a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with an Applicants’ Specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, we give claim terms their
ordinary meanings in the art, unless narrowed by an Applicants’
Specification, e.g., narrowed by an express definition or by an implicit
definition via the term’s usage. Id. at 1316 and 1321.
As noted in the Contentions section of this Decision, the Examiner has
provided evidence from a general purpose dictionary of the disputed term’s
ordinary meaning. (Ans. 12.) Federal Circuit case law also holds that,
absent clarification of a narrower scope, “coupled” is a term of substantial
breadth. See Bradford Co. v. Conteyor North America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1262,
1266-67, 1270-71 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the district court had properly
“found the claim term ‘coupled to’ to mean ‘linked together, connected or
joined,’” but had improperly later “ruled that the term ‘coupled to’ was
restricted to a direct coupling”); and Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v.
Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 992 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating the infringer
“recognizes that the unmodified term ‘coupled’ generically describes a
connection, and does not require a mechanical or physical coupling”).
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 6 -
Appellants’ Specification does not narrow the meaning of “coupled”
to a more specific or limited meaning, such as meaning “directly coupled”
and/or “mechanically coupled.” On the contrary, Appellants’ Specification
suggests that “coupled” should be interpreted broadly. The Specification
states that “coupled” may be: (a) “indirectly coupled” (Spec. 4); (b) “directly
coupled” (Spec. 3, 4, and 25); (c) “operably coupled” (e.g., Spec. 4:11-12
and claim 1, third limitation2), see also Spec. 13, 15, 27, 31, and 33-35; (d)
“mechanically coupled” (canceled claim 14); and (e) “fixedly coupled”
(Spec. 7).
Thus, the Specification clearly uses “coupled” in the broad generic
sense (e.g., inclusive of “indirectly coupled” and “operably coupled”),
except when modified to impart a narrower meaning (e.g., “directly
coupled” or “fixedly coupled”). We therefore agree with the Examiner’s
dictionary-supported definition of “coupled” as meaning “joined,” “linked,”
or “connected.” (Ans. 12.) See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322 (“Dictionaries or
comparable sources are often useful to assist in understanding the commonly
understood meaning of words[.]”).
Based on this understanding, we disagree with Appellants’
unsupported restriction on the meaning of the claim term “coupled.”
Appellants present no basis for requiring the claimed coupling to be
interpreted to have a “primary purpose of being intermediate or connecting
elements.” (App. Br. 7,(cited in the block quote, supra)). And, Appellants

2 The third limitation of claim 1, reciting that the actuator and rotatable
mechanical element are “operably coupled,” should not be confused with the
disputed fourth limitation, which is alternatively directed to the relationship
between the sensor module and the mechanical element, and which more
broadly recites “coupled” as opposed to “operatively coupled.”
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 7 -
present no evidence – e.g., Specification support, declarations, or prior art
usage – to show that the claimed coupling would be understood as causing
the rotatable element and sensor module to “move together or bear on each
other” without “translate[ing] one form of force or energy to another,” as
urged by Appellants. (Id.). Mere attorney speculation is not factual
evidence. See Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
Turning to the cited prior art, Day’s lever 60 (“rotatable mechanical
element”) strains the cylinder 62 and thereby increases the pneumatic
pressure sensed by the pressure transducer PT (“sensor module”) to measure
the flow rate. The lever 60 is accordingly “coupled” by the cylinder 62 to
the pressure transducer PT, as claimed. We further note that, although the
cylinder 62 need not have a “primary purpose of being [an] intermediate or
connecting element,” a skilled artisan would have understood the cylinder 62
as linking the lever 60 and pressure transducer PT with respect to sensing of
the flow rate.
For the reasons above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1
over Day and Ahmed. As Appellants do not present a separate basis of
patentability for dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12, we also sustain
the obvious rejection of those claims over Day and Ahmed.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 7, 8, 11, AND 21 OVER
KAWAI AND AHMED
Kawai
Kawai discloses a butterfly valve that senses the flow rate of a liquid.
(Abstract.) An actuator 11 rotates a shaft 3 and connected paddle 2 (“valve
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 8 -
member”) to open and close the valve. (See Fig. 1.) The flow induced
torque on the paddle 2 correlates to the rotational strain and position of the
shaft 9, which are accordingly sensed and then used to determine the flow
rate. (Col. 7, l. 50 – col. 8, l. 38; col. 8, l. 66 – col. 9, l. 3; Fig. 2.)
Contentions
Claim 1 is the only contested claim. (App. Br. 14.) Dependent claims
7, 8, 11, and 21 stand or fall therewith. (App. Br. 14.)
The Examiner cites Kawai as teaching all but the wireless
communication circuit of claim 1. (Ans. 8-9.) Appellants argue that,
because Kawai’s valve is autonomously controlled, Kawai and Ahmed
cannot suggest a wireless readout of Kawai’s valve. (App. Br. 9-14.)
According to Appellants (App. Br. 9-10):
Kawai is directed to a butterfly valve that includes a
device for measuring a flow rate of fluid. (See Kawai at Figs. 1
and 2). . . . The actuator 11, the torque detection means 14, the
valve opening detection means 17, and the valve 2 would be
typically packaged together. If not packaged together, such
elements are otherwise very closely located to each other
because they all require very close physical proximity to the
valve 2.
Ahmed, by contrast, is directed to wireless systems for
use in building control environments. Specific examples of the
Ahmed system include a room or space within a building
having multiple sensors and actuators, wherein the devices are
spaced apart by several feet and are often located adjacent
different walls to a room. (See, e.g., Ahmed at Fig. 6 and
¶ 0097). Thus, in contrast to the Kawai system, the Ahmed
system involves a control system that has elements scattered
across significant distances within a room, and involves custom
configuration for each room. (See, e.g., Ahmed at Figs. 2 and
6).
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 9 -
Analysis
We disagree with Appellants’ argument. Even assuming arguendo
that Kawai teaches only an autonomously controlled valve, Kawai and
Ahmed must be considered for all that they teach as to the skill in the art.
See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (CAFC 1985)
(“A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of
technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and
attempting to protect.”). Appellants do not contest that Kawai teaches all
but a wireless readout of “fluid-flow induced force information,” as claimed,
nor that Ahmed shows such a wireless readout was within the skill in the art.
Thus, the issue at hand is not whether Kawai suggests the wireless readout,
as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 9-10). Rather, the issue is whether the
Examiner articulated a proper basis for proposing to wirelessly transmit and
read “fluid-flow induced force information” out of Kawai’s valve. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (USPTO bears an initial burden “to produce the
factual basis for its rejection”).
The Examiner set forth two rationales for why this modification
would have been obvious. The Examiner first found that Kawai’s valve “is
of the type that is commonly used” in an HVAC (heating ventilation and air
conditioning) system. (Ans. 16.) The Examiner then determined that a
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use Kawai’s valve within an
HVAC system, as modified to wirelessly transmit and readout flow rate
information to the wireless control system of Ahmed. (Ans. 9 and 16-17.)
The finding and first obviousness rationale are reasonable, especially
considering that Kawai merely prefers a closed feedback for accelerated
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 10 -
feedback control (Kawai col. 5, ll. 33-41); i.e., Kawai does not teach away
from a wireless feedback control. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference
does not teach away […] if it merely expresses a general preference for an
alternative invention[.]”).
The above finding and obviousness rationale are also uncontested.
Appellants’ argument addresses only the Examiner’s separate finding and
second obviousness rationale, wherein the Examiner finds that Kawai’s
valve includes discrete sensor and control components and wherein the
Examiner concludes that Ahmed suggests a wireless communication
between such discrete sensor and control components (Ans. 17-20). That is,
Appellants argue only that Kawai’s valve employs a closed loop control
system that would not benefit from a wireless connection between the
valve’s self-contained, closely located sensor components 14, 17, 18 and
controller 21. (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-5.)
In addressing the Examiner’s second position, Appellants have not
addressed the Examiner’s first rationale: that it would have been obvious to
use both Kawai’s valves and Ahmed’s wireless control system in the same
HVAC system, whereby the resulting Kawai/Ahmed system would include
valves wirelessly reading out flow rate information to and receiving
feedback control information from the wireless control system of Ahmed
(Ans. 9 and 16-17). Thus, Appellants have not demonstrated that the
Examiner’s first obviousness rationale is improper.
For the above reasons, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 1
over Kawai and Ahmed. As Appellants do not present a separate basis of
Appeal 2009-013198
Application 11/528,710

- 11 -
patentability for dependent claims 7, 8, 11, and 21, we also sustain the
obviousness rejection of those claims over Kawai and Ahmed.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 5 OVER DAY, AHMED, AND
MARRERO
Appellants do not present a separate basis of patentability for
dependent claim 5. (App. Br. 14-15.) We accordingly refer to our previous
discussion of claim 1 based on Day and Ahmed and sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 5 over Day, Ahmed, and Marrero.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-12, and 21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

kis