HilFlo, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2020

2019006041 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2020)

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.
14/262,872 04/28/2014 Jeffrey L. Hilpert 3260-00300 8825
62763 7590 08/31/2020
TOD T. TUMEY
TUMEY LLP
P.O. BOX 22188
HOUSTON, TX 77227-2188
EXAMINER
LIU, SHUYI S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2020 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 JEFFREY L. HILPERT
Appeal 2019-006041
Application 14/262,872
Technology Center 1700
BEFORE ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, and 16–19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HilFlo, LLC.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006041
Application 14/262,872

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A torque sensor for measuring the torque applied to a
pinion gear of a planetary gearbox for a decanter centrifuge
having a torque sensing assembly which includes a torque sensor
arm and an over center lever arm comprising:
a body having a first stem portion adapted to be received in a
circular ring member located at a first end of the over center lever
arm and having a first cross-sectional area and a head portion
adapted to rest against a first end of the torque sensor arm having
a second cross-sectional area larger than that of the stem portion;
and
a force sensor embedded in the head portion of the body and
having a pair of electrical contacts whereby the torque on the
pinion gear will be measured by the force sensor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2019-006041
Application 14/262,872

3
Name Reference Date
Häfner US 4,644,805 Feb. 24, 1987
Miyoshi US 7,668,669 B2 Feb. 23, 2010
Begale et al. “Begale”2 EP 1 136 804 A2 Sept. 26, 2001
Omega Reaction Torque Cell TQ201,
http://www.omega.com/pptst/TQ201.html. _Internet Archive_.
https://web.archive.org/Web/20130901203012/http://www.omega.com/ppt
st/TQ201.html. Sept. 1, 2013, July 25, 2017 “Omega.”
Tekscan, Tek.scan FlexiForce Sensors, retrieved from
tekscan.com/flexible-force-sensors, dated March 25, 2014. Submitted by
Applicant on 2 November 2016 “Tekscan.”

REJECTIONS3
1. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Begale in view of Häfner.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable
over Begale in view of Häfner and Omega.
3. Claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Begale in view of Häfner or Begale in view of Häfner and
Omega, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyoshi.
4. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable
over Begale in view of Häfner or Begale in view of Häfner and Omega and
further in view of Miyoshi, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view
of Tekscan.

2 We use the name “Begale” to avoid confusion, but note this is not the first
named inventor of this reference.
3 A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 1 and 16–19 has been
withdrawn. Ans. 11; Final Act. 2–3.
Appeal 2019-006041
Application 14/262,872

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal (including the Examiner’s Answer, the Appeal
Brief, and the Reply Brief), we are persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections and add the
following primarily for emphasis.
We refer to pages 4–9 of the Answer regarding the Examiner’s
statement of the rejection for Rejection 1. Therein, the Examiner states that
Begale discloses a torque sensor 10 capable of measuring the torque applied
to a pinion gear of a planetary gearbox for a decanter centrifuge having a
torque sensing assembly, which includes a torque sensor assembly, which
includes a torque sensor arm and an over center lever arm comprising: a
body having a first stem portion (narrower portion on elements 22 and/or 24
in Figure 3 of Begale), capable of being adapted to be received in a circular
ring member located at a first end of the over center lever arm and having a
first cross-sectional area, and a head portion (wider portion on elements 22
and/or 24 in Fig. 3), capable of being adapted to rest against a first end of the
torque sensor arm having a second cross-sectional area larger than that of the
stem portion; and a force sensor in the body and having a pair of
electrical contacts 30 and 32, whereby the torque on the pension gear is
capable of being measured by the force sensor. Ans. 4. The Examiner states
Appeal 2019-006041
Application 14/262,872

5
that Begale does not disclose that the force sensor is embedded in the head
portion of the body. Ans. 4.
The Examiner states that Häfner discloses a force sensor 5 and/or 15
embedded in the head portion 1,2, 11 and/or 12 of the body (Fig. 1 and 2).
Ans. 4.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
have modified the sensor of Begale to embed the force sensor as taught by
Häfner for the purpose of improving sealing issues (Häfner, col. 1 ll. 30–49).
Ans. 4.
To reiterate, Appellant’s claim 1 recites:
1. A torque sensor for measuring the torque applied to a
pinion gear of a planetary gearbox for a decanter centrifuge
having a torque sensing assembly which includes a torque sensor
arm and an over center lever arm comprising:
a body having a first stem portion adapted to be received in a
circular ring member located at a first end of the over center lever
arm and having a first cross-sectional area and a head portion
adapted to rest against a first end of the torque sensor arm having
a second cross-sectional area larger than that of the stem portion;
and
a force sensor embedded in the head portion of the body and
having a pair of electrical contacts whereby the torque on the
pinion gear will be measured by the force sensor.

Appellant points out that Begale does not suggest the claimed torque
sensor having a body 50 having two portions (stem portion 61 and head
portion 52) with a sensor element 53 embedded in the head portion 52.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that Begale also does not suggest a body
having the stem portion 61 adapted to be inserted into a ring member 57 of
an over center lever arm 58, and a head portion 52 adapted to rest upon a flat
Appeal 2019-006041
Application 14/262,872

6
surface on the lower portion 63 of torque arm 51 as shown in Appellant’s
Figure 5. Reply Br. 2. Appellant states that sensor 50 is embedded in the
head portion 52. Appellant states that due to this geometry, the force sensor
can be held in place between the torque arm and lever arm 56. Id.
Appellant’s Figure 5 is reproduced below (with annotations).

FIG. 5 is a perspective view of a torque sensor according to an
embodiment of the invention connected to the centrifuge torque sensing
mechanism.

Appeal 2019-006041
Application 14/262,872

7
We are persuaded by the aforementioned arguments made by
Appellant. The Examiner does not point to specific teachings in
Begale that correlate with the aforementioned claimed structure
(claimed elements) recited in claim 1. The Examiner states that the
claimed functional language and intended use are met by the applied
art because the claimed structure is disclosed in the applied art (Ans.
4-6), but, in fact, as pointed out by Appellant, the Examiner has not
made adequate findings that Begale teaches the claimed structure in
order to say that the claimed functional language and intended use are
inherent. The Examiner’s reliance upon Häfner does not cure the
stated deficiencies of Begale.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. We also reverse
Rejections 2–4 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed
1, 16–19 112(b) Indefinite 1, 16–19
1, 16 103 Begale, Häfner 1, 16
1 103 Begale, Häfner,
Omega
1
17–19 103 Begale, Häfner,
Omega, Miyoshi
17–19
18 103 Begale, Häfner,
Omega, Miyoshi,
Tekscan
18
Appeal 2019-006041
Application 14/262,872

8
Overall
Outcome
1, 16–19
REVERSED