Ex Parte HAN DE MAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2017

13689136 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2017)

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.
13/689,136 11/29/2012 Eelco HAN DE MAN 70521-USPRIP 6005
147365 7590 09/25/2017
Silaan Disinensiina SJvstp.ms
EXAMINER
501 South 5th Street, 3rd Floor
Richmond, VA 23219-0501
ZOLLINGER, NATHAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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):
patent@barjos.com
sdslegaldocket @ silgands .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EELCO HAN DE MAN and STEFAN KOSTER
Appeal 2016-001428
Application 13/689,1361
Technology Center 3700
Before: LINDA E. HORNER, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 MeadWestvaco Calmar Netherlands B.V. is an applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal 2016-001428
Application 13/689,136
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to valves and pumps using said valves.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are independent. Claim 6, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
6. A valve for a pump, comprising:
a valve stem;
an outlet valve at a first end of the valve stem;
a valve disc at a second end of the valve stem; and
wherein the valve stem has a diameter equal to the largest
diameter of the outlet valve extending from the outlet valve
towards the valve disc and a narrowing portion adjacent the valve
disc.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chen US 6,012,613 Jan. 11, 2000
Ophardt US 7,959,037 B2 June 14, 2011
Yuan US 2008/0029547 A1 Feb. 7,2008
REJECTIONS
Claims 6—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Chen.
Claims 1—5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen and Ophardt.
Claims 9—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen and Yuan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chen, Yuan, and Ophardt.
2
Appeal 2016-001428
Application 13/689,136
OPINION
Claim 6— “Diameter”
Appellants argue that “Chen fails to describe a ‘valve stem’ having
the recited ‘diameter’ and therefore fails to anticipate claim 6.” Appeal Br.
9. More particularly, Appellants argue that claim 6 does not allow “for
[the] ‘narrowing portion’ to have a diameter that is larger than ‘the largest
diameter of the outlet valve.’” Id.
Claim 6 includes, inter alia, “wherein the valve stem has a diameter
equal to the largest diameter of the outlet valve extending from the outlet
valve towards the valve disc and a narrowing portion adjacent the valve
disc.” Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 6.
Though the claim requires that the valve stem have “a diameter equal to the
largest diameter of the outlet valve,” and it requires that the valve stem with
this diameter extend towards the valve disc, the claim does not limit the
diameter of the valve stem at the narrowing portion2. Thus, we are not
informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Claim 6— “End”
Appellants also argue that the Office makes an “incorrect
‘interpretation’ of the term ‘end’” because “[t]he alleged ‘outlet valve’ and
2 The Examiner states that “Appellants challenge” the Examiner’s finding of
a “narrowing portion adjacent the valve disc.” Ans. 10. However we could
not find any arguments directly contesting the Examiner’s finding that
“narrowing functionality” reads on the claimed “narrowing portion.” See
e.g., Appeal Br. 9 (“Even if the Office’s analysis of the ‘narrowing
functionality’ of the flap of the ‘diaphragm 4’ describes ‘a narrowing portion
adjacent the valve disc,. . .”).
3
Appeal 2016-001428
Application 13/689,136
‘valve disc’ of Chen are not positioned at the ends of the ‘mandrel 32’ as
recited in claim 6.” Appeal Br. 7, 8.
Claim 6 includes, inter alia, “an outlet valve at a first end of the valve
stem” and “a valve disc at a second end of the valve stem.” The Examiner
finds that these limitations are taught by Chen with the valve stem being
features 4, 31, and 32. Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains:
were the stem’s middle [] to be marked with a line, the top and
bottom portions could be considered its ‘ends’, irrespective of
how close the two portions are to the actual end points of the
valve stem. Such interpretation is present here, with the
Examiner noting that the relevant elements occur at a top end
portion or a bottom end portion.
Adv. Act. 2; see also Ans. 10.
Though the Examiner refers to the “ends,” the claim construction
employed appears directed to the terms “top and bottom portions” which are
not found in claim 6. Claim 6 requires specific features to be “at a first [or
second] end of the valve stem.” Thus, the relationship of the outlet valve
and the valve disc “to the actual end points of the valve stem” is what is
claimed. The Examiner’s claim construction is not a reasonable construction
and does not appear to be based on the actual claim language. See generally,
Appeal Br. 7—9.
Because the Examiner’s claim construction is not reasonable, the
Examiner improperly finds that Chen teaches all of the features of claim 6.
For example, looking to Chen Figures 1—4, it can be seen that the disc 31 is
located near the middle of the mandrel 32 and not at an end of the mandrel.
As noted above, the Examiner finds that features 4, 31, and 32 of Chen read
on the claimed valve stem. Final Act. 2. The Examiner also finds that the
feature 31 is the claimed valve disc. Id. As the disc 31 is not at an end of
4
Appeal 2016-001428
Application 13/689,136
the mandrel, i.e. the valve stem, the Examiner has not shown how Chen
teaches “a valve disc at a second end of the valve stem” as required by claim
6.
The Examiner also takes the position that it is not necessary for the
valve stem to “include the top rod (within 33).” Ans. 10. We take no
position as to which features generally may or may not be considered a valve
stem. At the same time, the current rejection relies on features 4, 31, and 32
for teaching the valve stem, and where the mandrel 32 is considered part of
the valve stem as in the case before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
finding that a valve disc is at an end of the valve stem.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s finding that Chen teaches “a
valve disc at a second end of the valve stem” as required by claim 6.
Claims 1—5 and 7—12
Similar to claim 6, claim 1 includes, inter alia, “an outlet valve at a
first end of the valve stem” and “a valve disc at a second end of the valve
stem,” and claim 9 includes, inter alia, “an outlet valve at a first end of the
valve stem seated against a discharge passage in the base” and “a valve disc
at a second end of the valve stem and seated against the attachment adapter.”
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 9, as well as the dependent
claims, all rely on the unsupported finding that Chen teaches “a valve disc at
a second end of the valve stem.” The Examiner’s reliance on Yuan and
Ophardt does not overcome this deficiency. For this reason we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the claims.
5
Appeal 2016-001428
Application 13/689,136
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—12 are reversed.
REVERSED
6