Ex Parte Groben

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13261433 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/261,433 10/23/2012
513 7590 03/28/2018
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Graben
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.
59739 6448
EXAMINER
LE,MINHQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN GROBEN
Appeal 2016-004213
Application 13/261,433
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 9-24. Claims 1-8 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hydac Technology
GmbH. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2016-004213
Application 13/261,433
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention relates to a safety device
for containers loaded by gas pressure, such as hydraulic accumulators. Spec.
1. Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
9. A safety device for containers loaded by gas pressure,
compnsmg:
a connecting device attachable to a pressure chamber of a
container;
a passage extending in said connecting device connecting
the pressure chamber to an outside of the container;
unmelted solder located directly in said passage and
forming a sealing plug that melts due to a temperature increase
and that blocks fluid communication between the pressure
chamber and the outside of the container;
a sealing cap on an end region of said passage forming a
spring housing;
a spring held in a tensioned state in said sealing cap by said
unmelted solder;
a control element movable axially in said passage by a
spring force of said spring upon melting of said solder, said
control element having a mandrel; and
a rupturable disk in said passage normally blocking fluid
flow through said passage, said mandrel being axially movable
with said control element upon melting of said solder to piece
said rupturable disk unblocking said passage for fluid flow
between the pressure chamber and the outside of the container.
THE REJECTION
Claims 9--24 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Mueller et al. (US 4,922,944; iss. May 8,
1990) and Wass et al. (US 5,495,865; iss. Mar. 5, 1996).
2
Appeal2016-004213
Application 13/261,433
ANALYSIS
The Examiner cites Mueller for each element of claim 9 except the
mandrel and rupturable disk. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner cites Wass for
its disclosures of a mandrel and rupturable disk, and the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious "to modify the safety device of Mueller et
al. to have the combination of the rupturable disk and the mandrel design as
disclosed by Wass et al. for the valve and the actuating shaft to provide a
low cost and simple design." Final Act. 2-3; accord Ans. 4--5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's proposed combination is
improper. Appeal Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3. Among other things, Appellant
notes the substantial structural and operational differences between
Mueller's device and Wass's device to argue that the Examiner's proposed
combination would not have been a mere substitution of parts.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
established that claim 9 would have been obvious in view of Mueller and
Wass. "[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As argued
by Appellant, Mueller discloses a relatively simple safety device and Wass
discloses a significantly more complex safety device with significantly more
moving parts in a different arrangement with different design considerations.
Compare, e.g., Mueller Fig. 1, with Wass Fig. 4. The Examiner's rationale
for modifying Mueller's device with the mandrel design and rupturable disk
of Wass "to provide a low cost and simple design" is not supported by the
evidence of record and amounts to a merely conclusory statement of
3
Appeal2016-004213
Application 13/261,433
obviousness, at least in light of the differences and relative complexity of
Wass's device compared to Mueller's device.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9, nor dependent claims 10-24.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 9--24.
REVERSED
4