Ex Parte Simon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12411517 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/411,517 0312612009
23984 7590 08/31/2016
JOHN MOLNAR JR
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION
6035 PARKLAND BOULEVARD
CLEVELAND, OH 44124-4141
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Horst Simon
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.
2802-932-001 5322
EXAMINER
DRIGGERS, GWENDOLYN YVONNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
paula.hurley@parker.com
jmolnar@parker.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HORST SIMON and STEFAN WITT
Appeal2014-005814
Application 12/411,517
Technology Center 3600
Before: WILLIAM A. CAPP, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Horst Simon and Stefan Witt ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-005814
Application 12/411,517
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fluid coupling with safety lock. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is the sole independent claim:
1 A coupling for connection to a source of fluid pressure, the
coupling comprising:
a receiving part comprising:
a valve housing having a passage channel extending
axially therethrough and a hole extending radially therethrough,
the passage channel being connectable in fluid communication
with the source of fluid pressure, and the hole connected in fluid
communication with the passage channel;
a piston received within the hole for sliding radial
movement therein responsive to fluid pressure being received
within the passage channel between an inward pushed-in
position and an outward pushed-out position; and
a locking sleeve received coaxially on the valve housing
for movement thereon between a first axial position and a second
axial position, and for rotational movement thereon between a
first rotational position and a second rotational position; and
a plug part insertable coaxially into the rece1vmg part,
wherein as the plug part is inserted into the receiving part,
the locking sleeve is moved axially from the first axial position
to the second axial position locking the plug part within the
receiving part, and rotationally from the first rotational position
to the second rotational position preventing the movement of the
locking sleeve from the second axial position to the first axial
position, and
wherein with the coupling being connected to the source
of fluid pressure and with fluid pressure being received within
the passage channel, the piston is moved from the pushed-in
position to the pushed-out position preventing the rotational
movement of the locking sleeve from the second rotational
position to the first rotational position.
Appeal Br. 10.
2
Appeal2014-005814
Application 12/411,517
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Medovarski
Stout
Comer
us 915,985
us 2,270,089
us 3,291,152
REJECTIONS 1
Mar. 23, 1909
Jan. 13, 1942
Dec. 13, 1966
(I) Claims 1and2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Comer.
(II) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Comer and Stout.
(III) Claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Comer and Medovarski.
(IV) Claims 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Comer, Medovarski, and Stout.
OPINION
Rejection(!)
The Examiner finds that Comer discloses all of the features required
in claim 1, and in particular, finds that valves 25 and 26 of Comer each
correspond to the recited piston that is moved from a pushed-in position to a
1 A rejection of claims 3, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite, has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 9.
3
Appeal2014-005814
Application 12/411,517
pushed-out position preventing rotational movement of a locking sleeve. See
Final Act. 5-6.
Appellants contend that valves 25 and 26 do not prevent rotation of
sleeve 30 in Comer. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellants assert that valves 25
and 26 control fluid pressure to cavities 40 and 42, and any locking function
disclosed in Comer is related to axial locking. Id.
In response, the Examiner states:
Comer discloses piston/valve (26). Figure 2 illustrates
valve (26) in the pushed-out position and in contact with groove
(44). Column 3 lines 30-32 disclose that the coupling is locked
in the connected position when valve (26) is aligned with groove
(44), as shown in figure 2. In order to disconnect the coupling,
Comer discloses in column 3 lines 39-43 that the sleeve is rotated
such that valve (26) is moved to the pushed-in position as
illustrated in figure 2'.
The piston (26) must be in the pushed-in position in order
for the locking sleeve to rotate to any position other than what is
shown in figure 2. Thus, when the sleeve is locked in the
connected position and the piston (26) is in the pushed-out
position, rotational movement of the locking sleeve is prevented
until the piston is moved to the pushed-in position.
Ans. 9-10. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the ability of sleeve 30 to
rotate depends upon the position of valve 26.
Comer teaches "an improved coupling of the type described which is
locked and unlocked by line fluid pressure introduced respectively as
required into the spring cavity and into the uncoupling cavity." Comer,
col. 1, 11. 49-54. Valves 25 and 26 control fluid flow to spring cavity 40 and
uncoupling cavity 42. See Comer, col. 1, 11. 59---68, col. 3, 11. 39--48.
Accordingly, Comer uses valves 25 and 26 to control fluid pressure that
locks the coupling.
4
Appeal2014-005814
Application 12/411,517
Describing the control of fluid pressure used for locking the coupling,
Comer states, "[ v ]alves 25 and 26 are mounted in the ports and urged
radially outwardly away from the seats 24 by spring 27 against a slidable
and rotatable sleeve 30." Comer, col. 2, 11. 36-38. "The inner face of the
sleeve 30 is provided with grooves 43 and 44, which when selectively
aligned with the rounded heads of the valves 25 and 26, permits them to
open under the action of their springs 27, the sleeve face otherwise keeping
the valves closed." Comer, col. 2, 11. 53-58 (emphasis added); see also
Comer, Figs. 1 and 2. Further, "[t]he valve 26 is openable by movement
into the groove 44 upon rotation of the sleeve 30 about the receptacle 11, to
admit line pressure fluid to the spring cavity 40 by a passage 45" and
"opening of the valve 25 and closing of the valve 26 is effected by rotation
of the sleeve 30 to align the valve 25 with the groove 43, the valve 26 being
cammed closed by the inner face of the sleeve." Comer, col. 2, 11. 59-65;
see also col. 3, 11. 26-48. Thus, proper alignment of grooves 43 and 44 (on
sleeve 30) with valves 25 and 26 selectively opens or closes these valves. In
other words, the rotational position of sleeve 30 controls the position of
valves 25 and 26, not the other way around. Accordingly, the Examiner's
finding that valves 25 and 26 prevent sleeve 30 from rotating is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Comer.
5
Appeal2014-005814
Application 12/411,517
Rejections (II-IV)
Rejections II-IV all deal with claims depending, directly or indirectly,
from claim 1, and the Examiner's use of Medovarski and Stout does not
remedy the deficiency discussed above regarding Comer. Accordingly, we
reverse Rejections II-IV.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 is reversed.
REVERSED
6