Ex Parte Lawyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2016

13105178 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/105,178 05/11/2011
73325 7590 05/13/2016
Matthew G. McKinney
Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A.
255 South Orange A venue
Suite 1401
Orlando, FL 32801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jerry D. Lawyer
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.
0124237 (05953-001) 2703
EXAMINER
FRISTOE JR, JOHN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2016 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):
mmckinney@addmg.com
creganoa@addmg.com
skemraj@addmg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JERRY D. LA WYER and
FABIAN AMAYA
Appeal2014-003819
Application 13/105, 178
Technology Center 3700
Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 17-19. App. Br. 1. Claims 3, 4, 16, and
20 have been cancelled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates in general to pressure regulators
and in particular to a pressure regulator seat assembly." Spec. i-f 1. Claims
Appeal2014-003819
Application 13/105, 178
1, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A pressure regulator seat assembly, the assembly
compnsmg:
a chamber;
a tapered flange continuously sloping downstream from
an upstream edge of the chamber into a flow path of the
assembly, wherein a proximate end of the flange attached to the
chamber is tapered continuously to its distal end into the flow
path;
a throttling stem seat disposed on a lower surface of the
flange;
a plurality of support ribs adapted to support the flange,
wherein the plurality of ribs is spaced about one half side of the
chamber; and
a complementary base adapted to mount to the chamber
about a downstream edge of the chamber to form the assembly.
REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Youngberg US 7,048,001 B2 May 23, 2006
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by Youngberg. 1
ANALYSIS
Each independent claim (i.e., claims 1, 10, and 15) recites a
"chamber." Appellants state, "the chamber described by the Appellant is
element 202, which is a physical part claimed and defined in the
specification and drawings." Reply Br. 7; see also Spec. i-fi-123 and 25-27
1 The Final Office Action states that "claims 1-20" are rejected, but claims
3, 4, 16, and 20 are canceled. Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2014-003819
Application 13/105, 178
(supporting Appellants' contention that "chamber" is a "physical part").
The Examiner, on the other hand, correlates "chamber' to the "interior in fig
1" of Youngberg for each of these claims. Final Act. 2- 4. The Examiner
further states, "[t]he chamber is not a specific mechanical part of
Youngberg's device but a hypothetical space." Ans. 6.
Appellants' Specification provides several examples whereby
"chamber" is a reference to a physical device as per Appellants' contention
supra, and is not an interior space as understood by the Examiner.
Paragraph 23 of Appellants' Specification describes an opening through the
chamber. Paragraph 25 describes chamber 302 as having ledge 206 in order
to provide a seal. Paragraph 26 describes chamber 302 as having internal
ridge 208. Paragraph 27 describes flange 304 attached to chamber 302.
These are all indicative that the term "chamber" is a physical device and not
simply an enclosed cavity, interior space, or "hypothetical space." Ans. 6.
Based on this, it is apparent the Examiner understands (and employs) the
claim term "chamber" in a manner that is not consistent with Appellants'
Specification. This alone provides a reason to reverse the Examiner's
rejection. See also Reply Br. 7, 9.
In addition to reciting a "chamber," each of independent claims 1, 10,
and 15 also recite a "flange." Claims 1 and 10 further recite that this flange
extends "from an upstream edge of the chamber" (claim 15 lacks this
"upstream edge" recitation). The Examiner's annotation of Figure 1 from
Youngberg is reproduced below:
3
Appeal2014-003819
Application 13/105, 178
Figure 1 from Youngberg is annotated by the Examiner to depict the
location of the upstream edge of the chamber.
The Examiner, in the above-annotated drawing of Youngberg,
provides a horizontal line that is tangent with item 66, which the Examiner
describes as representing the "Upstream Edge of Chamber." Final Act. 6;
Ans. 7; see also Ans. 6 ("the upstream edge of the 'chamber' is taken to be
the dotted line shown"). However, the Examiner identifies item 66 of
Youngberg not as the "chamber," but instead as the "flange." Final Act. 6
("the downstream slope of the flange can be seen as shown by the two
arrows"); see also Final Act. 2 ("tapered flange ( 66)"), Final Act. 3 ("flange
( 66)"). Hence, the horizontal line provided by the Examiner more accurately
identifies the location of the upstream edge of Youngberg' s corresponding
flange 66, not of Youngberg's corresponding "chamber." Furthermore, and
because the Examiner identifies "chamber" as the "interior" of Youngberg' s
4
Appeal2014-003819
Application 13/105, 178
Figure 1, a more accurate identification of the location of the claimed
"upstream edge of the chamber" would be Youngberg' s inlet 18 since this is
the upstream edge of the interior shown in Youngberg' s Figure 1.
As indicated supra, independent claim 15 does not contain language
directed to the "upstream edge of the chamber." However, claim 15
contains language directed to the flange "covering an upstream portion" of
the ribs (claims 1 and 10 do not have such language). On this point, the
Examiner identifies the corresponding ribs in Youngberg. See Final Act. 7,
Ans. 8. However, these ribs are exposed as can be seen from Youngberg's
Figure 2 that is replicated at Final Act. 7 and Ans. 8. The Examiner does not
explain how or where Youngberg discloses that corresponding flange 66
actually "cover[s] an upstream portion" of these ribs. Instead, the Examiner
simply states that Youngberg discloses a flange "covering an upstream
portion of the plurality of ribs" (Final Act. 5) without providing any
indication where this might be taught or shown in Youngberg.
Furthermore, independent claims 1 and 15 (but not claim 10) also
include a limitation directed to a plurality of ribs that are "spaced about one
half side of the chamber." Appellants state, "[t]he plain meaning of 'spaced
about one half side of the chamber' is that the ribs are spaced around one
half side of the chamber."2 Reply Br. 4. The Examiner, on the other hand,
states that in one interpretation of this claim limitation, Youngberg' s ribs
"can be seen to only be distributed on one-half of the circumferential edge of
the chamber." Ans. 7. However, being distributed "on one-half' of the
2 Appellants also state, "a reasonable interpretation of the claim language of
'spaced about one half of the chamber' means that the ribs 210 are spread
out approximately 180 degrees around the chamber 202." Reply Br. 10; see
also Reply Br. 5.
5
Appeal2014-003819
Application 13/105, 178
chamber's edge is not the same as being spaced about or around a half side
of the chamber. This is evident in Youngberg's Figure 2, which does not
disclose the corresponding ribs as forming a semi-circle. In an alternate
interpretation of this claim limitation, the Examiner finds that Youngberg' s
ribs are located "in the upstream half of the chamber." Ans. 7. Again,
although Youngberg ribs are located "in the upstream half," Youngberg' s
ribs are not spaced or spread along a half side of the chamber as recited.
Independent claim 1 also recites, "wherein a proximate end of the
flange attached to the chamber is tapered continuously to its distal end."
Independent claim 10 recites the same language, but does not include the
word "continuously." The Examiner relies on annotated side or cross-
sectional Figure 1 of Youngberg (see supra) for disclosing this limitation.
Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 7. Appellants, on the other hand, rely on a
different perspective (top or plan view) of Youngberg (i.e., Figure 3) to
show that Youngberg' s flange 66 does not "taper" as claimed, but instead
"expands" from its proximal end "in the shape of a disc." Reply Br. 6; see
also App. Br. 6. In short, the Examiner and Appellants are addressing
different views of the same flange 66 in support of their respective positions.
However, in view of our analysis supra regarding the Examiner's rationales
for the rejection of claims 1 and 10, we need not resolve this matter.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 17-19.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-15 and 17-19 are reversed.
REVERSED
6