Ex Parte Hawken et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2009

11096279 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PHILIP C. HAWKEN, JEROME C. KLOPP,
ROBERT J. VAN DER LINDE,
and PAUL H. TUMA

Appeal 2008-6075
Application 11/096,279
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: January 27, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Statement of the Case
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for
simultaneously changing multiple liquid level settings in a liquid-level
Appeal 2008-6075
Application 11/096,279

switch. The liquid-level switch includes a diaphragm actuated pressure
switch apparatus having a first and a second switch. The actuator
apparatus includes a single control knob shaft rotatably connected to the
pressure switch apparatus and having a first and a second cam fixedly
attached to the shaft for rotation therewith. (Spec. 1). Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A liquid-level switch, comprising, a diaphragm actuated
pressure switch apparatus having a first and a second switch, and
a single control knob shaft rotatably connected to the pressure
switch apparatus and having a first and a second cam fixedly
attached to the shaft for rotation therewith, the first cam being
operatively connected to provide a biasing force against actuation
of the first switch, and the second cam being operatively
connected to provide a biasing force against actuation of the
second switch.

The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Stearley US 4,081,637 Mar. 28, 1978
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
unpatentable over Stearley. Claims 8, 9, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Stearley.
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). We answer this question in the affirmative. Therefore, WE

2
Appeal 2008-6075
Application 11/096,279

REVERSE.1
The Examiner contends Stearley describes a liquid-level switch,
comprising a diaphragm actuated pressure switch apparatus having a first
and a second switch, and a single control knob shaft rotatably connected to
the pressure switch apparatus and a first and a second cam that anticipates
the claimed invention. (Ans. 3-4). Regarding the first and second cam the
Examiner states:
-a first and second cam [42A, 93, Figure 14] fixedly attached to the
shaft for rotation therewith;
- the first cam being operatively connected to provide a biasing force
against actuation of the first switch [when the cam 42A of Figure 14
is rotated clock-wise, blade tip 41A moved [sic, moves] down to
reset the switch] and the second cam being operatively connected to
provide a biasing force against actuation of the second switch [when
the cam of Figure 13 is rotated anti-clockwise, blade tip 41A moved
[sic, moves] up to restore the switch].

(Ans. 3-4).
The Examiner further contends that a single cam 42A is actually two
cams because cam 42A comprises two distinct surfaces (93) that function
to actuate the first and second switches by different sections of this curved
surface. (Ans. 5-6).
We agree with Appellants that “cam 42A and its corresponding
structure taught by Stearley and relied upon by the Examiner does not
teach two cams as required by claims 1 and 10, but only teaches a single

1 We select independent claims 1 and 10 as representative of the rejected
subject matter.
3
Appeal 2008-6075
Application 11/096,279

cam.” (Br. 7). Specifically, the Specification describes the invention as
follows:
The actuator apparatus 36 also includes a single control knob shaft
72 rotatably mounted in a pair of apertured projections 76, 78
extending from the housing 20, for rotation about an axis of
rotation 80. The single control knob shaft 72 includes a first and a
second cam 82, 84 fixedly attached to the shaft 72 for rotation
therewith. When the control knob shaft 72 is operatively attached
to the housing 20, a stepped surface of the first cam 82 is
operatively connected to bear against the cam follower arms 66 of
the first adjustable bias spring cartridge 38 to provide a biasing
force through the cartridge 38 into the receptacle 50 at one distal
end of the rocking arm 28 for biasing the first switch 14 against
actuation. In similar fashion, when the control knob shaft 72 is
operatively attached to the housing 20, a stepped cam surface of
the second cam 84 engages the cam follower arms 66 of the second
adjustable bias spring cartridge 40 to provide a biasing force
through the second cartridge 40 into the receptacle 52 at the
opposite end of the rocking arm 28 to thereby provide a biasing
force against actuation against of the second switch 16.
(Spec. ¶ [0024])
The single cam 42A of Stearley does not teach the identical
invention or teach the device arranged as required by the claimed
invention. The claimed invention requires two separate cams that function
as two separate cams. (See elements 82 and 84). The claimed invention
does not specify a single element that has two separate cam surfaces as
suggested by the Examiner.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of anticipation and obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992). A claimed invention is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
when all of the elements of the claimed invention are found in one
4
Appeal 2008-6075
Application 11/096,279

reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found. V. Genentech Inc., 927
F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In
re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For the reasons
discussed above, the Examiner has not established anticipation in this case.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8, 9, and 17-20 does
not address the suitability of adding a separate component to function as a
second cam in the device of Stearley. Thus, the Examiner’s arguments in
support of the obviousness rejection are not persuasive.

ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED

ssl

REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107

5