Ex Parte Mackulin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

12565242 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/565,242 0912312009
114172 7590 03/25/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - Power Controls,
Sensing Systems
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3207
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bryan J. Mackulin
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.
PA-212.12625-US-AA 1106
EXAMINER
WADDY, JONATHAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte BRYAN J. MACKULIN and KURT M. TAUSCHER
Appeal2014-003270
Application 12/565,242 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-16. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 17-20 have been
withdrawn. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest in this appeal is
Goodrich Corporation." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003270
Application 12/565,242
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. An aircraft potable-water system comprising:
a storage tank that is full when it contains a set amount of
potable water and not full when it contains less than this amount;
a ground-fill line having an upstream end adapted for
connection to an external potable-water source and a downstream
end communicating with the storage tank;
an overflow line having an upstream end communicating
with the storage tank and/or the ground-fill line and a
downstream end communicating with a drain;
a valve movable between an overflow-open position
whereat potable water is not blocked from draining through the
drain and an overflow-closed position whereat potable water is
blocked from draining through the drain; and
wherein the valve automatically moves and/or remains in
its overflow-open position when storage tank is full and
automatically moves and/or remains in its overflow-closed
position when the storage tank is not full, this automatic
movement being caused \'l1ithout manual or electrical interaction
with the valve.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kobayashi (US 6,302,133 Bl, iss. Oct. 16, 2001).
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ehrhardt (US 5,769, 124, iss. June 23, 1998) and Benjey
(US 5,950,655, iss. Sept. 14, 1999).
2
Appeal2014-003270
Application 12/565,242
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Kobayashi
The Appellants contend that Kobayashi fails to disclose "a valve
which 'automatically moves and/or remains in its overflow-open position
when storage tank is full and automatically moves and/or remains in its
overflow-closed position when the storage tank is not full.'" Appeal Br. 6.
The Appellants support this contention by asserting that Kobayashi's relief
passages, i.e., relief passage 26 (with relief valve 27) and a relief passage 28
(with relief valve 29), do "not mov[e] in response to the tank 11 being full,
but rather to the fill pipe 12 being overly full." Appeal Br. 6. The
Appellants' contention is not persuasive.
In response the Examiner finds that "the tank in Kobayashi is seen as
comprising the box shaped tank [ (tank main body)] 11 as well as ... neck
[ (filler pipe)] 12 considering their permanent fluid communication."
Ans. 11; see Advisory Act. 2, Kobayashi, col. 3, 11. 8-13.
The Examiner's finding shows that the Appellants' argument
misunderstands how the Examiner applied Kobayashi to correspond to the
storage tank of claim 1. The Examiner's finding is not based on tank main
body 11 alone as the Appellants argue. Instead, the Examiner refers to tank
main body 11 and filler pipe 12 as corresponding to the storage tank of
claim 1. Ans. 11; see Ad. Act. 2.
As such, the Appellants' contention is not persuasive because it fails
to explain error in the Examiner's finding that Kobayashi's elements 11 and
12 correspond to the "storage tank," as required by claim 1, and as such,
fails to explain error in the Examiner's finding that first relief valve 27 or
second relief valve 29 corresponds to the "valve" as required by claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-003270
Application 12/565,242
Thus, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Kobayashi
is sustained. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-7, and 9-
11, which is not argued separately.
Obviousness based on Ehrhardt and Benjey
The Examiner finds Ehrhardt discloses an aircraft potable-water
system comprising a storage tank 5, a ground-fill line 14, and overflow
line 9, as required by claim 1. Final Act. 9-10. Regarding the valve of
claim 1, which calls for automatic movement being caused without manual
or electrical interaction with the valve, the Examiner finds that Ehrhardt
lacks a teaching that corresponds to the valve of claim 1. However, the
Examiner references that Ehrhardt's aircraft potable-water system includes a
multi-function valve 15. See Final Act. 10. Multi-function valve 15 is
operated by an electric motor 24 or by a hand operated lever 25 and has four
different valve setting positions for filling and draining aircraft lOO's fresh
water supply system 1. Ehrhardt, col. 4, 11. 34--37, 48---62, col. 5, 11. 1-3.
The Examiner turns to Benjey's disclosure and finds that valve 22
corresponds to the valve of claim 1. Benjey describes valve 22 as a relief
valve that "is provided as a bypass to trap door seal 18, providing both
pressure and failed nozzle relief." Benj ey, col. 2, 11. 61---63 (emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ehrhardt's system "to include a
valve in the overflow line that automatically moves between overflow-open
and overflow-closed positions in response to the overflow conditions sensed
4
Appeal2014-003270
Application 12/565,242
as taught by Benjey, to ensure one directional flow out the overflow line as
intended by Ehrhardt." Final Act. 10.
The Appellants contend that "it would not have been obvious to
modify the Ehrhardt overflow line to include a Benjey-like relief valve to
ensure one directional flow out of this overflow line." Appeal Br. 6-7. The
Appellants assert that "[t]he applied art does not show or suggest that one-
direction-flow is an issue in the Ehrhardt overflow line" and "[t]he reason
Benjey needs a relief valve in its filler pipe 12 is that this line functions
normally as fill line whereby one-way flow is important and the bypass path
needs to remain closed except in overflow situations." Appeal Br. 7. The
Appellants also assert "that some reason would have to exist for one of
ordinary skill to modify an overflow line to include a check valve." Appeal
Br. 7.
In response, the Examiner explains that "[i]t is well known in the art
to put a check valve anywhere where one directional flow is intended to
prevent backflow due to whatever cause." Ans. 12 (emphasis added). Also,
the Examiner explains:
one of ordinary skill would recognize that a line acting solely as
an overflow line is intended to only have fluid flow in one
particular direction, and therefore, a reason to include a check
valve in a line intended to only have fluid flow in one particular
direction is to ensure that fluid flows in that one particular
direction as intended.
Ans. 13 (emphasis added).
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Appellants' contention
is persuasive. Initially, to the extent that the Examiner's response suggests
that all systems having an intention of one directional flow are benefitted by
a check/relief valve, such a suggestion is not adequately supported. In this
5
Appeal2014-003270
Application 12/565,242
case, the Examiner's response does not adequately explain why preventing
backflow using a check/relief valve in overflow line 9 would be beneficial to
Ehrhardt's aircraft potable-water system.
Further, we note that after the Examiner's proposed modification
Ehrhardt's system would include two valves associated with overflow line 9:
a check/relief valve in overflow line 9; and multi-function valve 15, which is
positioned at the end of overflow line 9. See Ehrhardt, Fig. 2. The
Examiner fails to explain how the inclusion of a check/relief valve in
overflow line 9 would have been beneficial to Ehrhardt's aircraft potable-
water system, particularly when multi-function valve 15 already acts to
control water in overflow line 9.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-16 as
unpatentable over Ehrhardt and Benjey is not sustained.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-
11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kobayashi.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ehrhardt and Benjey.
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-IN-PART
6