Ex Parte Rowan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

14135677 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017)

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.
14/135,677 12/20/2013 Brian Rowan 2055-015C 1015
27820 7590 09/22/2017
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC27511
EXAMINER
CHEYNEY, CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2017 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):
patents @ wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN ROWAN and PATRICK WALSH1
Appeal 2016-002901
Application 14/135,677
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1—10. See Appeal Br. 6—9. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Walsh Intellectual Property Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest
and the Applicant. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002901
Application 14/135,677
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A tubular duct member comprising a plurality of
circumferential sheet material panels joined along adjacent
longitudinal edges by cooperating sheet material catches
formed along each edge, the catches being pushed together such
that respective detent surfaces on each catch engage behind one
another to retain the edges of the sheets together, wherein at
least one of the catches includes a body of resilient material
compressed between the catches and biasing the catches apart
to maintain the detent surfaces bearing against one another,
wherein each catch comprises a rib of triangular cross-section
extending along the respective edge, the detent surfaces being
surfaces of said ribs.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Knudson (US 2009/0058078 Al, pub. Mar. 5, 2009).
Claims 6—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Knudson and Noonan (US 6,270,865 Bl, iss. Aug. 7, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5 and 10 as anticipated by Knudson
The Examiner finds that Knudson discloses duct member 18, as
recited in claim 1, with sheet panels 20, 21 joined by cooperating catches
(first and second connectors 25, 26) with a body of resilient material (sealant
bead 43) compressed between catches 25, 26 to bias the catches apart and
maintain detent surfaces (tail 47, second end 39) bearing against each other.
Final Act. 3; Ans. 2—3. The Examiner reasons that sealant 43 is resilient
because it deforms between the detent surfaces to enhance the seal and has a
normal force that acts against other objects that contact it. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-002901
Application 14/135,677
Appellant argues that Knudson discloses that sealant 43 is deformable
like an adhesive or putty, but Knudson does not disclose sealant 43 as being
resilient or biasing first connection portion 25 away from second connection
portion 26 to lock the panels together, as recited in claim 1. Br. 6—8.
The Examiner’s finding that Knudson discloses a body of resilient
material that is compressed between the catches and biases the catches apart
is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Appellants disclose this
material as “[a] body of resiliently compressible plastics material 36” that
“both seals the join [sic] between the edges of the panels and biases the
catches apart to maintain the bases 28, 30 of the ribs 26, 22 strongly bearing
against one another to avoid a loose joint.” Spec. 6:20—26. This usage is
consistent with an ordinary meaning of resilient as “capable of withstanding
shock without permanent deformation or rupture” or “tending to recover
from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.” See Definition of resilient by
Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resilient
(last viewed Sept. 12, 2017).
The Examiner reasons that anything with mass inherently exhibits a
normal force back at another object in contact with it, and this force alone
provides a biasing. Ans. 2. The Examiner also finds that a certain amount
of resiliency is disclosed implicitly by the enhancement of sealing when the
surfaces compress the sealant body, and this reformation of shape (ability to
return to an original shape) allows the deformable sealant 43 to fill crevices
or spaces between the surfaces and bias them apart an appreciable amount.
Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Figure 3 illustrates two surfaces biased
apart from one another with the resilient sealant 43 disposed therebetween
and acting against each surface as a biasing force. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-002901
Application 14/135,677
Our review of Knudson leads us to the opposite conclusion from that
reached by the Examiner. Figures 3—6 of Knudson are reproduced below.
Figure 6 is an end view of the second connector 26, which is inserted
into the first connector 25, which is pictured in Figure 5. A sealant bead 43
is placed in receptacle 28 (first end 37) of first connector 25 as shown in
Figure 5 so that when second connector 26 is inserted into first connector 25,
sealant bead 43 is compressed as shown in Figure 3 above. Then, flange 29
of first connector 25 is pushed or formed against tail 47 of second connector
26 to complete the connection as shown in Figure 4. Knudson H 24—25.
4
Appeal 2016-002901
Application 14/135,677
We agree with the Examiner that sealant bead 43 is compressed when
second connector 26 is inserted into first connector 25. Knudson discloses
that when nose 46 (of second connector 26) is inserted into receptacle 28 (of
first connector 25), “the nose 46 deforms the bead of sealant 43, enhancing
the sealing of the connection 15.” Knudson 124; Ans. 3 (citing id.). The
drawings of Knudson illustrate this deformation. Figure 5 shows sealant
bead 43 with a circular cross section before second connector 26 is inserted
into first connector. Figure 3 shows the deformation of sealant bead 43 by
nose 46 of second connector 26 after assembly.
We are not persuaded, however, that Knudson discloses that sealant
bead 43 is resilient, i.e., has an ability to return to its original shape or exert
a force against nose 46 of second connector 26 or against first end 37 of first
connector 25 to bias first connector 25 and second connector 26 and their
catches apart or maintain detent surfaces 47, 39 bearing against one another,
as the Examiner found. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2—3. Instead, Knudson illustrates
sealant bead 43 as being permanently deformed from a circular cross section
in Figure 5 to a semi-circular cross section in Figures 3 and 4. As a result,
Figure 3 shows a gap between detent surfaces 47, 39. We understand this
gap to signify that sealant bead 43 does not exert any biasing force between
first and second connectors 25, 26 such that the connectors 25, 26 are biased
apart or their respective detent surfaces 47, 39 bear against one another, as
claimed. In other words, even though a space or gap exists between first and
second connectors 25, 26 after assembly, sealant bead 43 retains a deformed
shape in Figure 3. It does not expand in any respect. It does not bias first
and second connectors 25, 26 apart or cause detent surfaces 47, 39 to bear
against one another, as claimed.
5
Appeal 2016-002901
Application 14/135,677
As a result, Knudson discloses that flange 29 of first connector 25
must be pushed, formed, hand crimped, or roll formed against tail 47 of
second connector in order to secure second connection 26 inside of first
connection 25 and complete the sealed connection as shown in Figure 4.
Knudson 125.
In view of these disclosures, we are not persuaded that sealant bead 43
exerts a biasing force between the first and second connections 25, 26 to bias
those elements apart or maintain detent surfaces 47, 39 bearing against one
another, as required by claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1—5 and 10.
Claims 6—9 as unpatentable over Knudson and Noonan
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Noonan to teach
features of dependent claims 6—9 (see Final Act. 5) does not remedy the
deficiencies of Knudson as to claim 1, from which claims 6—9 depend.
Br. 8. We agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6—9.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—10.
REVERSED
6