Ex Parte Schelhaas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2015

12072343 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2015)

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.
12/072,343 02/26/2008 Douglas D. Schelhaas H07-043A 4476
26683 7590 03/13/2015
THE GATES CORPORATION
IP LAW DEPT. 10-A3
1551 WEWATTA STREET
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DOUGLAS D. SCHELHAAS and
DONALD R. GILBREATH
____________________

Appeal 2013-000399
Application 12/072,343
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Douglas D. Schelhaas and Donald R. Gilbreath (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2,
and 5–14.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1
The Examiner withdraws the rejections of claims 15 and 18–20. Ans. 9.
Claims 3, 4, 16, 17, and 21–25 are canceled. Br. 5.
Appeal 2013-000399
Application 12/072,343

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a hose anti-collapse rib. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hose anti-collapse rib comprising:
a first cantilevered portion curved in a first direction and
defining a first end;
a second cantilevered portion curved with a different
curvature than said first cantilevered portion and in a direction
facing said first direction and defining a second end disposed at
an opposite extent of said rib from said first end;
means for locking said first end to said second end such
that said first and second cantilevered portions together form a
generally circular shape, and
an interference ridge defined in an exterior surface of
said cantilevered portions, wherein said interference ridge is
adapted to deform a generally flexible hose in which said rib is
disposed to provide an interference interlock between said rib
and said hose when said rib is expanded within said hose.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dufour
Gilleland
Maimets
Skinner
US 3,700,265
US 5,042,532
US 5,119,862
US 5,732,955
Oct. 24, 1972
Aug. 27, 1991
Jun. 9, 1992
Mar. 31, 1998

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Maimets and Dufour.
II. Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gilleland and Dufour.
Appeal 2013-000399
Application 12/072,343

3
III. Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Skinner and Dufour.

OPINION
In all of the rejections at issue the Examiner finds that Dufour
“discloses a hose anti-collapse rib (20) having an interference ridge (28) on
an exterior surface.” Final Act. 4, 6, 8. Although Appellants admit that
Dufour “clearly shows ridge 28 deformed within pipe sections 30 and 32,”
Appellants argue that “there is absolutely no indication that pipe sections 30
or 32 are deformed or deformable.” Br. 10. We understand Appellants to be
arguing that Dufour fails to disclose that “said interference ridge is adapted
to deform a generally flexible hose” as required by independent claim 1. Br.
21, Clms. App.
In response to this argument, the Examiner determines that “the
relevant language only requires that the interference rib be ‘adapted to’ or
capable of deforming a generally flexible hose when the anti-collapse rib is
placed within a generally flexible hose.” Ans. 9. The Examiner’s claim
construction is correct. The application of that construction, however, is in
error as the Examiner has proffered no evidence or persuasive argument that
Dufour’s interference ridge 28 is adapted to or capable of deforming a
generally flexible hose as required. Rather, as argued by Appellants and
shown in Dufour’s Figure 3, “ridge 28 [is] deformed within pipe sections 30
and 32.” Br. 10. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Dufour “discloses a hose
anti-collapse rib (20) having an interference ridge (28) on an exterior
surface” is not sufficient evidence that Dufour’s ridge 28 is capable of
deforming a flexible pipe (Ans. 3, 6, 8).
Appeal 2013-000399
Application 12/072,343

4
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
independent claim 1 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Maimets and Dufour, Gilleland and Dufour, or Skinner and Dufour. For the
same reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2,
5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Maimets and Dufour, claims 2, 5–7,
9, 13, and 14 as unpatentable over Gilleland and Dufour, or claim 12 as
unpatentable over Skinner and Dufour.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5–14 are REVERSED.

REVERSED

rvb