Ex Parte Huff et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 201813390377 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/390,377 02/14/2012 Hans-Joachim Huff PA-0009106-US-AA 7917 87059 7590 02/23/2018 Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER BARRY, DAPHNE MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2018 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HANS-JOACHIM HUFF, JASON SCARCELLA, LUCY YI LIU, SURESH DURAISAMY, ZVONKO ASPROVSKI, MARK S. ROGERS, and GILBERT B. HOFSDAL Appeal 2016-004219 Application 13/390,377 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hans-Joachin Huff et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schneider (US 4,168,723, iss. Sept. 25, 1979). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-004219 Application 13/390,377 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an apparatus to indicate when a pressure relief valve has been activated. Spec. 8. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A pressure relief valve activation indicator comprising: a covering disposed about an exterior surface of a pressure relief valve, the covering disposed about the exterior surface of the pressure relief valve over at least a portion of a pressure relief valve outlet passage, the outlet passage extending from an interior of the pressure relief valve to the exterior surface of the pressure relief valve, the covering located over at least a portion of the pressure relief valve outlet passage when the pressure relief valve is in an inactivated state, the entire covering displaceable by refrigerant flowing out said outlet passage so as to indicate said refrigerant has flowed out said outlet passage when said covering is displaced, the entire covering being blown off from and completely separated from the pressure relief valve in response to refrigerant flowing out said outlet passage when pressure in the pressure relief valve reaches or exceeds a predetermined level of pressure, the pressure relief valve resealing when pressure in the pressure relief valve is below the predetermined level of pressure. DISCUSSION Appellants argue all of the claims together. See Appeal Br. 3—5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—4, 6, 7, and 9 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Schneider discloses each and every limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 3^4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Schneider discloses “a covering (18) disposed about an exterior surface (outside surface of retainer 16 and outside surface of valve body 12) of a pressure relief valve (10).” Id. at 3. The Examiner further finds that: 2 Appeal 2016-004219 Application 13/390,377 when covering (18) is displaced, the entire covering (18) [is] blown off from and completely separated from the pressure relief valve (10) in response to fluid flowing out said outlet passage (openings in retainer 16) when pressure in the pressure relief valve (10) reaches or exceeds a predetermined level of pressure. Id. at 3^4 (citing Schneider Fig. 2, 2:18—28). Appellants contend that “[i]n Schneider, the cap 18 is not ‘blown off from and completely separated from the pressure relief valve’ as recited in claim 1. Cap 18 remains in physical contact with the valve body 12 after a pressure release event.” Appeal Br. 4. In support of this contention, Appellants reproduce Schneider’s Figures 1 and 3. See id. Responding to this argument, the Examiner notes that Schneider’s “Figure 3 depicts the valve (10) after the pressure is released and the valve (10) is brought back to a closed position,” whereas Schneider’s Figure 2 illustrates the valve with the covering blown off. Ans. 6. Schneider describes its Figure 2 as “illustrating the position of the movable parts during pressure relief operation” and Figure 3 as “illustrating the position of the movable parts after completion of a pressure relief operation.” Schneider 1:34—38. Thus, the Examiner is correct, and Appellants do not apprise us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 9, which fall therewith. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 9 is AFFIRMED. 3 Appeal 2016-004219 Application 13/390,377 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation