Ex Parte Webster

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13129734 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/129,734 05/17/2011
27049 7590 04/03/2018
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John R. Webster
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.
149526 1749
EXAMINER
BARRY, DAPHNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
OfficeAction27049@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN R. WEBSTER
Appeal2017-004145
Application 13/129,734 1
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-18, 21, and 23-28. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, "[ t ]he real party in interest for this appeal and
the present application is ROLLS-ROYCE PLC." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-004145
Application 13/129,734
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 15, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A valve arrangement, comprising:
a valve body and a valve seat, each having an opposed
surface, the opposed surface of at least one of the valve body and
the valve seat including a resiliently displaceable surface that
defines a time constant; and
a high-frequency cyclic actuator to move the valve body
with respect to the valve seat to bring the opposed surfaces into
and out of abutment, wherein
a period of oscillations of the high-frequency cyclic
actuator is shorter than the time constant of the resiliently
displaceable surface,
a displacement of the high-frequency cyclic
actuator and a displacement of the valve body are operatively
associated,
the actuator is a piezoelectric actuator, and
the displaceable surface comprises a compressible
material.
Rejections
Claims 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Worrall et al. (US 5,368,060, issued Nov. 29,
1994) ("Worrall").
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Worrall and Dryer (US 3,572,735, iss. Mar. 30, 1971) ("Dryer").
2
Appeal2017-004145
Application 13/129,734
Claims 15-18 and 24--28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sims, Jr. et al. (US 4,915,354, iss. Apr. 10, 1990)
("Sims") and Worrall.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Worrall
Independent claim 15, recites "[a] valve arrangement" including "a
valve body," "a valve seat ... including a resiliently displaceable surface
that defines a time constant," and "a high-frequency cyclic actuator to move
the valve body with respect to the valve seat to bring the opposed surfaces
into and out of abutment." Appeal Br., Claims App. Also, claim 15 recites
"a period of oscillations of the high-frequency cyclic actuator is shorter than
the time constant of the resiliently displaceable surface" (id. (emphasis
added)), which calls for a relationship between the period of oscillations of
the high-frequency cyclic actuator and the time constant of the resiliently
displaceable surface.
We note that the claimed phrase "period of oscillations" refers to
multiple cycles of oscillation and requires at least one full cycle, which starts
at a starting point and ends when it gets back to the starting point. See also
Reply Br. 6, 13 ("It was additionally explained that oscillation has its plain
and ordinary meaning of movement back and forth."). Further, we disagree
with the Examiner's construction of the claimed phrase "period of
oscillations" as a partial oscillation (see Ans. 9).
The Examiner finds that Worrall' s piezo disc 12 and piezo electric
activators 19 correspond to the claimed "high-frequency cyclic actuator" and
housing 13, first spring 14, second spring 15, and adhesive (rigid glue) 17
3
Appeal2017-004145
Application 13/129,734
correspond to the claimed "valve seat." See Final Act. 4. Accordingly, to
properly reject independent claim 15, the Examiner must adequately support
the finding that the period of oscillations of piezo disc 12 and piezoelectric
activators 19 is shorter than the time constant of a resiliently displaceable
surface of housing 13, first spring 14, second spring 15, and rigid glue 17.
The Appellant correctly points out, however, that Worrall is silent as
to the period of oscillations of the piezo disc 12 and piezoelectric activators
19 and fails to disclose a time constant of a resiliently displaceable surface
of first spring 14, second spring 15, and rigid glue 17. Appeal Br. 7-9.
With regard to the period of oscillations, Worrall describes that
"[fJluid flows between the spring multiple component sealing element 15, 14
and the movable valve disc 12," however the remainder of the description is
incomplete. Worrall, col. 3, 11. 49-52 (emphasis omitted); see Appeal Br. 7.
With regard to the time constant, we fail to understand how one of
ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably ascertain the time
constant of a resiliently displaceable surface of first spring 14, second spring
15, rigid glue 17, or housing 13. As for first spring 14, Worrall describes
"after initial assembly the first spring 14 is locked to prevent further
movement by, for example, an adhesive (rigid glue) 17." Worrall, col. 3,
11. 32-36; Appeal Br. 7. Additionally, Worrall does not disclose how long it
would take for first spring 14 to return to its original shape after being
displaced, prior to assembly. As for second spring 15, Worrall describes that
"second spring 15 has a constant compression (since there is a spatially
constant force applied) and, therefore, matches exactly the profile
irregularity of the disc 12." Worrall, col. 3, 11. 29-32 (emphasis omitted).
Moreover, Worrall suggests that the changes to the second spring are
4
Appeal2017-004145
Application 13/129,734
irreversible. See id. at col. 2, 11. 48-56, col. 3, 11. 22-25; Appeal Br. 8. As
such, Worrall does not offer a clear explanation of how long it would take
for second spring 15 to return to its original shape after being displaced,
assuming second spring 15 is able to return to its original shape after being
displaced. The same is true for housing 13 and rigid glue 17.
Accordingly, we fail to ascertain how one of ordinary skill in the art
- upon reading Worrall' s disclosure - would be able to determine that the
period of oscillations of piezo disc 12 and piezoelectric activators 19 is
shorter than the time constant of a resiliently displaceable surface of housing
13, first spring 14, second spring 15, and rigid glue 17. Although the
Examiner reaches a contrary position, the position appears to be based on
speculation rather than sound evidence and technical reasoning.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15, 16, 18,
21, 24, and 25 as anticipated by Worrall.
Obviousness based on Worrall and Dryer
The Examiner's rejection of claim 23 based on Worrall and Dryer
relies on the same inadequately supported findings discussed above (Final
Act. 6), and is not cured by additional findings and/or reasoning associated
therewith. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 23 as unpatentable
over Worrall and Dryer.
Obviousness based on Sims and Worrall
As discussed above, independent claim 15 recites "a period of
oscillations of the high-frequency cyclic actuator is shorter than the time
5
Appeal2017-004145
Application 13/129,734
constant of the resiliently displaceable surface." Appeal Br., Claims App.
(emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Sims - and not Worrall - to teach the
aforementioned recitation of claim 15. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner finds
that solenoid coil 32 corresponds to the claimed "high-frequency cyclic
actuator" and appears to find that Sims' washer (e.g., frustoconical washer
20) corresponds the claimed "valve seat." See id. at 7; see Sims, Fig. 1.
The Appellant argues that Sims does not teach "that a period of
oscillations of the alleged high-frequency cyclic actuator is shorter than the
time it takes for the washer of Sims to return to its normal, relaxed
frustoconical configuration from the substantially flat planar configuration
... (i.e., a time constant of the washer of Sims)." Appeal Br. 15 (citing
Sims, Fig. 2); see id. at 16-17. The Appellant's argument is persuasive.
We fail to ascertain how one of ordinary skill in the art - upon
reading Sims' disclosure -would be able to determine that the period of
oscillations of solenoid coil 32 is shorter than the time constant of a
resiliently displaceable surface of Sims' washer. Notably, the Examiner
finds that that Sims' washer acts as a damper such that the washer has a
slower response time than the period of oscillations of solenoid coil 32,
which are rapid. See Ans. 14--15 (citing Sims, col. 4, 11. 1-35). This finding,
however, is based on speculation as there is insufficient disclosure in the
Sims patent to identify the relationship between the period of oscillations of
solenoid coil 32 and the time constant of the washer. As pointed out by the
Appellant, it may be the case that Sims' washer would need to fully restore
6
Appeal2017-004145
Application 13/129,734
to its original shape before being impacted by valve head. See Reply
Br. 15-17.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-18 and
24--28 as unpatentable over Sims and Worrall.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-18, 21,
and 23-28.
REVERSED
7