Ex Parte KÄFER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2018

13762632 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2018)

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.
13/762,632 02/08/2013 Jurgen KAFER 60154 8978
513 7590 02/20/2018
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
EXAMINER
TRINIDAD-BORGES, JOSEPHINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2018 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@ wenderoth. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JURGEN KAFER, BERND MICHEL, and ERIC RINKENBACH
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants Jurgen Kafer et al.1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated
October 9, 2015 (“Final Act.”) and the Advisory Actions (“Adv. Act.”)
dated December 4, 2015 and January 22, 2016, rejecting claims 12, 13, and
15—31.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a control device for paint spraying systems
and application systems. Claims 12 and 23 are the independent claims on
appeal. Claim 12, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for
emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
12. A control device for paint spraying and application
systems, comprising:
a piping system for carrying different fluids having a
piggable pipeline with a spraying station therein;
separating pigs in the piping system separating different
fluids conveyed in said piping system;
individual control blocks in said piping system, each of
said control blocks having a plurality of actuatable switching
valves enabling input and/or output of said separating pigs and
simultaneous conveying of fluids with said separating pigs in
said piping system, one of said control blocks being an input
control block at a beginning of said piggable pipeline extending
to at least one spraying station, said input control block
including a first input switching valve actuatable as a
controlling component of a pig launcher of said separating pigs
1 Appellants identify Hydac Accessories GmbH as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief, dated March 30, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), at 1.
2 Claim 14 is objected to. Jan. 22, 2016, Adv. Act. 1.
2
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
and a second input switching valve actuatable to release and to
block fluid inputs leading to said piggable pipeline.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Akeel US 5,221,047 June 22, 1993
Combs US 2008/0060706 A1 Mar. 13, 2008
Herre US 7,584,771 B2 Sept. 8, 2009
Erstad WO 01/71238 A1 Sept. 27, 2001
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:3
1. Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 18—20, 23, 24, 26—28, 30, and 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akeel and
Erstad.
2. Claims 17, 22, 25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Akeel, Erstad, and Herre.
3. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Akeel, Erstad, and Combs.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
3 The rejection of claims 12—22 and 24—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn. Jan. 1, 2016, Adv. Act.
1.
3
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
DISCUSSION
The Rejection of Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 18—20, 23, 24, 26—28, 30, and 31
as Unpatentable Over Akeel and Erstad
Independent Claim 12
The Examiner finds that Akeel discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 12 except for a control block having the first and second
input switching valves. For this missing limitation, the Examiner finds that
Erstad discloses a control block having a plurality of actuatable switching
valves 18, 26, 58 consisting of a pig receiving valve 18, a pig transferring
valve 26, and an emergency shutdown valve 58. Final Act. 5 (citing Erstad,
Figs. 2—10; 3:15—38; 4; 5:1—20; 6:8—13). The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious
to exchange the control blocks from Akeel for the control
blocks as taught by Erstad with the purpose of having the
additional valve actuated to release and block the fluids, as
suggested by Akeel, since exchanging the control blocks is only
a simple substitution of one known element for another to
obtain predictable results.
Id. According to the Examiner, Akeel as modified by Erstad discloses “the
claimed invention including a first input switching valve (18, Erstad) and
second input switching valve (58, Erstad) actuatable to release and to block
fluid inputs leading to said piggable pipeline.” Id.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for
several reasons. First, Appellants argue that (1) Akeel discloses one
switching valve, not two switching valves, and (2) “[e]ven if multiple fluids
flow through Akeel pipe 208, those multiple flows, if any, are not controlled
by multiple valves in its shuttle assembly 200, as would be necessary to
provide the claim 12 subject matter.” Appeal Br. 4—5.
4
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
As the Examiner correctly notes, “one cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” Answer, dated August 22, 2016 (“Ans.”), at 11
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Here, the Examiner relies upon Erstad, not
Akeel, for the disclosure of the two switching valves — “a pig receiving
valve (18, equivalent to [A]pplicant[s’] first input switching valve as
claimed), a pig transferring valve (26) and an emergency shut-down valve
(58, equivalent to [A]pplicant[s’] second switching valve as claimed).” Ans.
11. Appellants do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner
and, thus, do not identify error by the Examiner.
Second, Appellants argue that “Erstad does not disclose and is not
show[n] to disclose the second input switching valve actuatable to release
and to block plural fluid inputs into the piggable pipeline as recited in claim
12. ” Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellants, Erstad’s “emergency shut off
valve 58 is not indicated to control the plurality of fluid flows from plural
inputs into the pipe system, particularly since valve 58 is normally open for
inlet of a pig and does not control fluid flow” and “[ejven if Erstad shutoff
valve 58 is interpreted to control a single inlet flow Al, and a single outlet
flow A2 (page 5, lines 23-26), it does not disclose and teach the plural fluid
inlets recited in claim 12.” Id.
In response to Appellants’ argument that Erstad does not teach a shut
off valve controlling a “plurality” of fluid flows from “plural” inputs, the
Examiner explains that “the claim language of the independent claims [12
and 23 does not] require[] the second switching valve to include a plurality
of input ports” because “the claim language only requires . . .
5
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
‘simultaneously conveying of fluids’ [from the valves] and ‘a second input
switching valve actuatable to release and to block fluid inputs leading to
said piggable pipeline.’” Ans. 11. The Examiner consistently states that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “input” is “‘what is put in, taken
in, or operated on by any process or system.’” Jan. 22, 2106, Adv. Act. 2;
see also Ans. 11 (“fluid inputs is being interpreted as ‘what is put in, taken
in, or operated on by any process or system’ per Google’s definition.”).
In response to the Examiner’s proposed definition of “fluid inputs,”
Appellants argue that
claim 12 expressly recites “fluid inputs” in the penultimate line,
rendering the Examiner’s interpretation of no plurality of inputs
or input ports incorrect. Additionally, relative to this language,
the Examiner improperly cites to a Google definition that is
contrary to the [SJpecificaiton. The claims, when properly
interpreted in view of the [Specification provide for a plurality
of fluid inputs or input ports. One skilled in the pertinent art
would only interpret the claim language as set forth on behalf of
the Applicant and not the contrary interpretation proposed by
the Examiner.
Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ argument is conclusory and does not identity any
portion of the Specification or the claims that is inconsistent with the
Examiner’s proposed definition, and that requires a “plurality of fluid flows
from plural inputs,” as argued by Appellants. Contrary to Appellants’
reference to “fluid inputs” in the penultimate line of claim 12, claim 12
broadly recites that the piping system carries “different fluids” and the
plurality of switching valves permits “simultaneous[ly] conveying of fluids
with said separating pigs.” The Examiner’s proposed definition of “fluid
inputs” is consistent with, and merely refers to, the “different fluids” and
“fluids” recited in claim 12. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
6
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
In response to Appellants’ argument that Erstad does not disclose a
“second input switching valve actuatable to release and to block plural fluid
inputs into the piggable pipeline” (Appel Br. 5 (emphasis added)), the
Examiner, referring to the flow arrows A1 and A2 in Figure 3, explains that
Erstad’s valve 58 is described as a “shut off valve” that releases or blocks a
fluid from a source. Dec. 4, 2015, Adv. Act. 2. Acknowledging that “Erstad
by itself only conveys a single fluid in the control block,” the Examiner also
explains that Akeel’s control block “works with a plurality of fluid inputs
(high pressure air 169’, low pressure air 165’, solvent 110’...) which are
conveyed through the same path (208).” Ans. 11. Therefore, “as a result of
the combination of Akeel in view of Erstad, valve 58 of Erstad can be
actuatable to release and to block fluid inputs leading to piggable pipeline
208 of Akeel.” Id. (citing Akeel 7:62—65). Because Appellants’ argument
addresses the references individually, not as the combination of references
articulated in the Examiner’s rejection, Appellants do not identify error by
the Examiner. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 12 is sustained.
Independent Claim 23
The Examiner finds that Akeel discloses all of the limitations of claim
23, except for the limitation reciting (1) a control block having the first and
second end switching valves, and (2) the end control block is downstream of
the spray station. For the first missing limitation, the Examiner finds that
Erstad discloses a control block having a plurality of actuatable switching
valves 18, 26, 58 consisting of a pig receiving valve 18, a pig transferring
valve 26, and an emergency shutdown valve 58. Final Act. 7—8 (citing
7
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Erstad, Figs. 2—10; 3:15—38; 4; 5:1—20; 6:8—13). The Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious
to exchange the control blocks from Akeel for the control
blocks as taught by Erstad with the purpose of having the
additional valve actuated to release and block the fluids, as
suggested by Akeel, since exchanging the control blocks is only
a simple substitution of one known element for another to
obtain predictable results.
Id. at 8. According to the Examiner, Akeel as modified by Erstad discloses
“the claimed invention including a first input switching valve (18, Erstad)
and second input switching valve (58, Erstad) actuatable to release and to
block fluid inputs leading to said piggable pipeline.” Ans. 3.
For the second missing limitation regarding the end control block
located downstream of the spray station, the Examiner determines it would
have been obvious to “move the end control block downstream of the spray
station, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves
only routine skill in the art.” Final Act. 8—9 (citing MPEP § 2144.04 (VI-
C)). The Examiner also explains that:
By [Appellants’] own admission, the arrangement of an end
control block being downstream of the spray station is well
known to one of ordinary skill in the art: “In the exemplary
drawing from FIG. 1, this spraying station is depicted by a
spraying robot 5 and two hand spray guns 7. In order to be able
to change the color for the spraying station 3, which is
necessary for a clean separation of the fluids fed to the spraying
station 3, the system makes use of the known pigging
technology. For this purpose, the piping system 1 has a
piggable pipeline 9 with an inflow section 11 upstream of the
spraying station 3 and an outflow section 11 downstream of the
spraying station 3.”
Id. (citing Spec. 6 (last paragraph)).
8
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for
several reasons. First, Appellants repeat the arguments made above with
respect to claim 12. For the reasons discussed above, Appellants do not
show that the Examiner’s findings and reasoning are erroneous.
Second, Appellants argue that
Erstad does not disclose or teach a second end switching valve
connected to and controlling a pig receiver located downstream
of the end control block as recited in claim 23. Even if it may
have been known to use an outflow section downstream of the
spraying section, the mere teaching of plural valves in Erstad
would not render obvious the specific second end switching
valve as recited in claim 23. The specific arrangement of
features is not shown to be disclosed or obvious from Akeel and
Erstad.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is conclusory and does not address the
Examiner’s finding that it is well known to those skilled in the art, as
evidenced by Appellants’ own admission about “known pigging
technology,” to locate an end control block downstream of the spray station.
Appellants do not identify error by the Examiner.
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly used “hindsight
gleaned from the present application to rearrange the Akeel and Erstad in a
manner to form the structure recited in claim 23.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellants’ argument, however, does not identify any knowledge relied
upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure
and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention, thereby obviating Appellants’ assertion of hindsight. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Specification
states that locating the end control block downstream of the spraying stations
9
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
is “known pigging technology.” Spec. 6. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us
of error.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner “has not pointed to any
specific principle or motivation in the prior art that would lead one skilled in
the art to arrive at the invention as claimed.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants’
argument that Akeel and Erstad do not disclose a motivation to combine is
unpersuasive and has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Contrary to
Appellants’ argument, an express teaching or motivation in the references is
not required. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Instead, the Examiner need only articulate a reason to combine the
references with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness. Id. Here, the Examiner determines that combining Akeel
and Erstad would have been obvious, in part, because (1) “exchang[ing] the
control blocks from Akeel for the control blocks as taught by Erstad”
provides an “additional valve actuated to release and block the fluids, as
suggested by Akeel, since exchanging the control blocks is only a simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”
and (2) “mov[ing] the end control block downstream of the spray station” “is
well known to one of ordinary skill in the art” and “rearranging parts of an
invention involves only routine skill in the art.” Final Act. 8. Appellants do
not show error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 23 is sustained.
10
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Claims 13. 15-22, and2A-31^
Appellants argue that “[cjlaims 13—22 and 31 and claims 24—30, being
dependent upon claims 12 and 23, respectively, are also allowable for the
above reasons.” Appeal Br. 8. As discussed above, the rejection of claims
12 and 23 is sustained and, thus, Appellants’ argument for these dependent
claims is unpersuasive.
Appellants also argue that “these dependent claims [13—22 and 24—31]
recite additional features further distinguishing them over the cited
documents.” Id. Appellants’ argument that these dependent claims recite
additional elements that support patentability is not persuasive. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (37 C.F.R. § 41.37 requires
“more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art.”). Appellants’ conclusory argument does not
identify any patentable distinctions for claims 13, 15—22, and 24—31, and
fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites, in part, that the first input switching valve “is
actuatable between a first switching position opening an input port to insert
one of said separating pigs and blocking a connection to said second input
switching valve.” We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not
adequately explain how Erstad’s valve 18 (i.e., the first input switching
valve) simultaneously (1) opens an input port to insert one of the pigs and
4 Claims 17, 21, 22, 25, and 29 are not part of Rejection 1, but we
address them here for completeness. Claim 14 is objected to.
11
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
(2) blocks a connection to valve 58 (i.e., the second input switching valve) in
the first switching position. Appeal Br. 8. The rejection of claim 13 is not
sustained.
Claim 15
Appellants merely states that “[cjlaim 15 is further patentably
distinguishable for the reasons advanced above relative to independent claim
23. Those reasons are incorporated by reference.” Id. Appellants’
conclusory statement does not identify any patentable distinctions for claim
23, and fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. The rejection of claim 15 is sustained.
Claims 16 and 24
Claims 16 and 24 recite “a compressed air connection is at an end
fluid connection of said end control block between said first and second end
switching valves.”
The Examiner finds that Akeel and Erstad do not disclose this
limitation but “Akeel uses a solvent and air supply line (211) to move the
pig into a piggable line (208), with the port 211 [located] between the
entrance and exit of the control block,” and “Erstad teaches of a valve (47)
that allows a tool (52) to move the pig into a piggable line.” Final Act 6, 9
(citing Akeel 7:33—36, Fig. 6A). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious “to connect the air supply line 211 of Akeel into the
valve port 47 from Erstad, with the purpose of moving the pig inside the
control block, since is a simple substitution of one known element for
another to obtain predictable results, in this case, to move the pig.” Id. The
12
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Examiner concludes that “Akeel in view of Erstad as modified disclose a
control device wherein a compressed air connection is at an end fluid
connection (area including all fluid connections inside the end control block)
of said end control block between said first and second end switching
valves.” Id.
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings and reasoning,
arguing instead that the “Akeel air supply line 211 and the Erstad valve for
mechanical rod 46 operate in different manners for different purposes such
that they are unrelated and not obvious to combine as alleged.” Appeal Br.
8—9. Appellants also do not address the Examiner’s response that both
Akeel’s and Erstad’s “ports either by a mechanical movement or by fluid
pressure complete the task of moving a pig.” Ans. 12. Appellants’
argument is conclusory and does not specifically identify error by the
Examiner.
Thus, the rejection of claims 16 and 24 is sustained.
Claims 18 and 26
Claims 18 and 26 recite the “end control block comprises an output
port for pigs, said output port can be opened and blocked by said second end
switching valve.”
The Examiner finds that
Akeel in view of Erstad disclose a control device wherein said
end control block comprises an output port for pigs (generally
at 36, Erstad), said output port can be opened and blocked by
said second end switching valve (58 can block pigs and fluids
on their way to the output port, Erstad).
Final Act. 6, 9.
13
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Appellants argue the rejection is erroneous because “Akeel does not
have a second end switching valve and Erstad does not relate to an end
control block.” Appeal Br. 9. Because Appellants address the references
individually, not the combination of references as articulated in the
Examiner’s rejection, Appellants do not identify error by the Examiner. See
Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claims 18 and 26 is sustained.
Claims 19 and 27
Claims 19 and 27 recite “an end connecting line extends from an end
connection port of said end control block to a distributor control block, said
end connection port at said end control block being between said first and
second end switching valves.”
The Examiner finds that “Erstad teaches ... an end connection port
connected to a distributor control block (37, 38) which is located between
said first and second end switching valves.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious “to connect valves 218 and 170
from Akeel to the port near 38 of Erstad, since is a simple substitution of one
known element for another to obtain predictable results.” Id. at 7—8. The
Examiner concludes that the combination of Akeel and Erstad as modified
disclose[s] a control device wherein an end connecting line
(Figure 4, Akeel) extends from an end connection port (38,
Figure 9, Erstad) of said end control block to a distributor
control block (218, 170 of Akeel), said end connection port at
said end control block being between said first and second end
switching valves.
Id. at 8.
14
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Appellants argue that “[sjince no two end switching valves are
disclosed in Akeel and since Erstad does not relate to an end control block,
the proposed combination cannot have the connection to the distributor
control block as recited in these claims.” Appeal Br. 9—10. Because
Appellants address the references individually, not the combination of
references as articulated in the Examiner’s rejection, Appellants do not
identify error by the Examiner. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claims 19 and 27 is sustained.
Claims 20 and 28
Claims 20 and 28 recite, in part, “said distributor control block
comprises first, second, third, fourth and fifth switching valves actuatable to
open and close connections to and from said end connecting line.”
The Examiner finds that
Akeel in view of Erstad does not teach of a distributor
control block with 5 valves. However, in the same way that the
absence of a valve 170 would force the paint and solvent to be
mixed in one tank, and that mixed colors of paint in tank 146'
could still be used as a ground coat painting (column 9, lines 1 -
32) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate valve
170, paint tank 146' and solvent tank 167, since it has been held
that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device
involves only routine skill in the art unless a new and
unexpected result is produced. See MPEP [§] 2144.04(V1)(B).
By duplicating valve 170 and adding additional paint and
solvent tanks (same amount as the valves) different ground
colors could be obtained to be reused in the system, which
would facilitate in the application of coatings if they are similar
to the ground color; and an additional solvent tank could be
used when the initial one is full (as a backup tank).
15
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Akeel in view of Erstad disclose a plurality of valves
(first, second, third, fourth and fifth switching valves, since the
amount of valves does not show criticality, other than at least 3
valves are needed for the at least 3 reservoirs) actuatable to
open and close connections to from said end connecting line to
at least a paint reservoir, a slightly contaminated solvent
reservoir and a highly contaminated solvent collector in fluid
communication with said distributor control valve.
Final Act. 7, 10.
In response to the Examiner’s detailed analysis, Appellants merely
state that “[n]o evidence supports the allegation that the use of five valves in
the distributor block would be obvious, such that the rejection of this claim
does not provide a prominent case of obviousness,” and the “mere
conclusion of duplication of parts in the Office Action is not evidence of
obviousness.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants’ conclusory statements do not
identity error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. The rejection of
claims 20 and 28 is sustained.
Claims 30 and 31
Claims 30 and 31 recite the “first and second end switching valves are
independently operable relative to each other.”
The Examiner finds that “Akeel in view of Erstad disclose a control
device wherein said first and second end switching valves are independently
operable relative to each other.” Final Act. 11 (citing Erstad, Figs. 2—10).
In response to the Examiner’s finding, Appellants simply state “[n]o
such independent operation is disclosed or rendered obvious from Akeel or
any of the other citations.” Appeal Br. 11. Responding to Appellants’
argument, the Examiner explains that independent operation of the switching
valves is disclosed because “as seen in [Fjigures 4 and 5, position of valve
16
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
18 changes independently of valve 58, and [because] valve 58 is described
as an emergency shut-off valve, it is inherent that it may be activated at any
time during the process.” Ans. 13. Because Appellants do not address the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning, Appellants do not identify error.
The rejection of claims 30 and 31 is sustained.
Summary
In summary, the rejection of claims 12, 15, 16, 18—20, 23, 24, 26—28,
30, and 31 is sustained, and the rejection of claim 13 is not sustained.
The Rejection of Claims 17, 22, 25 and 29
as Unpatentable OverAkeel, Erstad, and Herre
Claims 17 and 25
Claims 17 and 25 recite “a pig sensor that signals presence of a pig is
at said end fluid connection.”
The Examiner finds that Akeel and Erstad do not disclose a sensor for
indicating the presence of a pig, but “Herre teaches the use of sensors (5 6A
and 568) to indicate the location of pigs (20A and 208) near a port (44) in
order to open a valve (48) (Figures 4 and 5, column 5, lines 36-60).” Final
Act. 11. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to
include the sensors 56A and 568 as taught by Herre, in the end control block
ports from Akeel in view of Erstad as modified, while connecting the
sensors to controller 154' from Akeel with the purpose of automating the
control of valve 212 (Akeel) according to the location of the pigs.” Id. 11
(citing Herre 5:36—60).
17
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
Appellants argue that Herre does not explicitly disclose a sensor
located between the end switching valves. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants are
arguing the Herre reference individually, not based on the combined
teachings of Akeel, Erstad, and Herre as articulated by the rejection. We
agree with the Examiner that, in the combination of the references, the pig
sensors would be located between the end fluid connections, as recited in the
claims. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Thus, the rejection of claims 17 and 25 is sustained.
Claims 22 and 29
Claims 22 and 29 depend from claims 17 and 25, respectively.
Appellants merely state that “[cjlaims 22 and 29 are further distinguishable
by the ball valves within the overall claim combination.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants’ conclusory statement does not identify any patentable
distinctions for claims 22 and 29, and fails to apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. The rejection of
claims 22 and 29 is sustained.
The Rejection of Claim 21
as Unpatentable Over Akeel, Erstad, and Combs
Claim 21 recites the “first and second input switching valves comprise
ball valves including rotatable ball elements and respective controllable
drives connected to said ball elements to rotate said ball elements as a
function of rotary position sensors connected thereto.”
We agree with the Examiner that Combs discloses “the use of ball
valves (16) including rotatable ball elements (30) in combination with a
18
Appeal 2016-008339
Application 13/762,632
rotary position sensor (18 with a controller 14) and respective controllable
drive (20, 48) that provides direct position feedback of the valve.” Final
Act. 12 (citing Combs 2-4, 37—38, 41, 45, 47, 55). However, because the
rejection of claim 13 is not sustained, and claim 21 depends from claim 13,
the rejection of claim 21 is not sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 15, 16,
18—20, 23, 24, 26—28, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Akeel and Erstad is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Akeel and Erstad is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 22, 25, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akeel, Erstad, and Herre is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Akeel, Erstad, and Combs is REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
19