Kent TaborDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 17, 20212020004785 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/847,756 09/08/2015 Kent Tabor 20-870-US-CON 8600 20306 7590 05/17/2021 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 300 S. WACKER DRIVE 32ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER KOLB, NATHANIEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2856 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/17/2021 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): docketing@mbhb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENT TABOR Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20. See Appeal Br. 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed September 8, 2015 (“Spec.”); Non-Final Office Action mailed July 11, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed February 11, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 14, 2020 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed June 8, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Although Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bimba Manufacturing Company in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 2), we have been Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 2 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to a system and method for predicting the condition of a cylinder, which uses pressure to determine the condition of a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder. Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 18, (Claims App.)): 1. An actuator system comprising: a piston-cylinder arrangement including a piston that is movable with respect to a cylinder; a piston seal positioned to form a seal between the piston and the cylinder; a shaft coupled to the piston and extending through the cylinder; a shaft seal positioned to form a seal between the shaft and the cylinder; a first flow path in fluid communication with the piston- cylinder arrangement; a second flow path in fluid communication with the piston- cylinder arrangement; a control system including a microprocessor and a memory device, the control system controls a three-way valve that is operable to fluidly connect the first flow path to a source of high-pressure fluid and to connect the second flow path to a drain to move the piston in a first direction; a pressure sensor fluidly connected to the first flow path and operable to measure sufficient pressure data during the movement of the piston to generate a pressure versus time curve, the pressure sensor removably connected to the cylinder such informed the name of the real party in interest has been changed to Bimba LLC, which has been recorded by virtue of assignment real/frame 052710/0968. “NAME CHANGE FOR REAL PARTY OF INTEREST” filed June 15, 2020. Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 3 that the pressure sensor can be used with a different actuator system, wherein the control system is configured to compare the generated pressure versus time curve to a known standard pressure versus time curve stored in the memory device, and determine the condition of the piston seal and the shaft seal of the piston-cylinder arrangement. Claims 9 and 18 are also independent and recite an actuator system and a method of predicting a failure in an actuator system, respectively. Id. 20, 22. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Weinstock US 3,362,215 Jan. 9, 1968 Weiss US 5,694,808 Dec. 9, 1997 Muller US 2002/0193924 A1 Dec. 19, 2002 Imanishi US 2003/0146845 A1 Aug. 7, 2003 Beuth US 2008/0060509 A1 Mar. 13, 2008 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, and 5–7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Weinstock, Weis, Beuth, and Imanishi. Non-Final Act. 3–9. 2. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Weinstock, Weis, Beuth, Imanishi, and Muller. Non-Final Act. 9–10. Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 4 3. Claims 9, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muller, Beuth, Imanishi, and Weis. Non-Final Act. 10–21. OPINION Rejection 1 Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the claims subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 11. We select claim 1 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Weinstock, Weis, Beuth, and Imanishi, the Examiner found Weinstock discloses an actuator system including a piston-cylinder arrangement, piston and shaft seals, a control system, and pressure sensors, where one pressure sensor is coupled to a first flow path. Non-Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner found that because Weinstock discloses driving pressure is monitored during movement of the piston by the sensor, it would be operable to measure sufficient pressure data during the movement of the piston to generate a pressure versus time curve. Id. 4. The Examiner found Weinstock discloses a control system, which would be operable to compare the generated pressure versus time curve to a known standard pressure versus time curve stored in the control system to determine the condition of the piston seal and the shaft seal of the piston- cylinder arrangement. Id. The Examiner found Weinstock itself does not explicitly disclose the pressure versus time curve is compared to a known Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 5 standard pressure versus time curve, but because Weinstock measures a time history of leakage based on pressure measurements and comparing one set of data to another, the system is capable of comparing the generated pressure versus time curve to a known standard. Id. The Examiner further found Weis discloses pressure sensors are used to generate pressure versus time curves and comparing them to known standard pressure versus time curves to access defects in hydraulic pump systems including leaking seals. See id. 5, citing Weis, col. 2, ll. 20–34, 43– 53. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have used the comparison of Weis with the pressure versus time curves of Weinstock to determine the magnitude of any discrepancies and aid in diagnosing defects in the system. Id. The Examiner found Weinstock does not disclose the control system includes a microprocessor and a memory device. Id. 5. The Examiner found Weis discloses a microprocessor with memory, and determined one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a microprocessor with memory to track data collected by the device of Weinstock in order to allow recording and comparing data quickly and automatically. Id. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues that Weinstock discloses pressure transducers that measure and record variations of pressure with the travel of a piston, which is not the same as measuring pressure versus time. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant argues that Weinstock uses recorded pressures to determine if actuant gas is leaking out of the actuator, which does not inform one of ordinary skill in the art about the condition of the seal. Id. 9. Appellant Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 6 argues also that Weinstock measures pressure over time on the low pressure side of the piston and not the high pressure side, and Weinstock is silent as to a pressure sensor that is operable to measure pressure data during movement to generate a pressure versus time curve on the high pressure side. Id. As a result, Appellant argues Weinstock does not determine the condition of both a piston seal and a shaft seal. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner has improperly relied on inherency to account for differences between what is disclosed in Weinstock and what is claimed. Id. 10. Appellant contends also that modifying Weinstock in view of Weis would improperly change the principle of operation of Weinstock. Id. 10–11. Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Weinstock with the control system of Weiss, because such a modification would have been unnecessary to achieve Weinstock’s objective of detecting a leak in a seal test specimen, and would complicate Weinstock’s system. Id. 11. Issue Did the Examiner err in concluding that Weinstock and Weis would have rendered obvious an actuator system including a control system configured to determine the condition of the piston seal and shaft seal of the piston-cylinder arrangement as a result of comparing pressure versus time curves to a known standard pressure versus time curve as recited in claim 1? Discussion We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In particular, we agree with the Examiner, that measuring variations in pressure with the Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 7 travel of the piston as disclosed in Weinstock would necessarily require measuring pressure over a period of time. Ans. 4. Weinstock discloses a piezo-electric pressure transducer 28 “to measure and record the variations of pressure with travel.” Weinstock, col. 2, ll. 53–55. Thus, each pressure measurement taken would occur as time elapses while the piston is traveling such that each pressure measurement occurring as the piston travels is later in time. As a result, the pressure transducer on the high pressure side of the actuator system in Weinstock is capable of measuring pressure versus time. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that although Weinstock discloses recording pressure to determine if actuant gas is leaking out of the actuator, such does not inform the ordinary skilled artisan about the condition of the seals. Throughout its disclosure, Weinstock discusses testing the effectiveness of the seals and seal configurations by measuring pressure. Weinstock, col. 1, ll. 26–30, col. 2, ll. 18–20, 33–38, 53–63. Although Appellant argues that there is a difference between determining a “condition” of a seal at a certain point in its life, and determining the appropriateness of the seal as a design choice for a particular device (Reply Br. 5), the claims do not recite such requirements for determining a condition of a seal. Thus, like the Examiner, we do not discern a difference between a “condition” of a seal as recited in claim 1, and the disclosure in Weinstock of determining whether gas is leaking from a seal. In addition, Appellant’s arguments fail to consider the entirety of the Examiner’s rejection, which as discussed above, relies also on Weis for the comparison of pressure versus time curves to known standards to assess system defects including leaking seals. Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 8 As to Appellant’s argument that Weinstock does not teach a control system that is operable to compare a generated pressure versus time curve to determine a condition of a piston seal and a shaft seal, we are not persuaded largely for the same reasons discussed above with respect to Appellant’s argument that Weinstock only discloses monitoring pressure versus time from the low pressure side. Further, Appellant’s arguments do not consider the combination of Weinstock and Weis relied on by the Examiner with respect to claim 1. In this regard, we do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner disregarded aspects of the system recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3–4. Rather, the Examiner accounted for all the capabilities required in claim 1 in combining Weinstock and Weis. As discussed above, Weinstock discloses obtaining pressure measurements during travel of the piston, which provides support for the Examiner’s position that the pressure sensors are capable of recording pressure readings at time intervals. Thus, Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not provided any basis in fact or technical reasoning for the position as to the inherent capabilities of the pressure sensor are not persuasive. In addition, as discussed above, the Examiner relied on Weis for the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have generated pressure versus time curves and to compare them to known pressure versus time curves in order to determine whether the piston seal and shaft seal are leaking, as using pressure versus time is a known method for such a purpose. See Weis, col. 2, ll. 13–33. Similarly, Appellant’s arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Weinstock with Weis because it would change the principle of operation of Weinstock are not persuasive. Appellant’s Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 9 arguments with respect to measuring pressure and piston travel have been addressed above. As to Appellant’s argument that Weis tests its systems “dry,” Appellant does not sufficiently explain why this disclosure in Weis would improperly change the principle of operation of Weinstock. Weis provides evidence that monitoring pressure versus time is a known technique for determining the existence of leaks in actuator systems. Appellant does not provide a sufficient explanation as to why applying the technique of Weis to the system of Weinstock would be anything more than applying a known alternative technique to a known system. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the addition of Weis’s control system is unnecessary to the objective system of Weinstock. Appeal Br. 11. As discussed above, the Examiner’s rationale relies on Weis’s disclosure of a control system having a microprocessor and a memory, in order to enable storing and comparing pressure versus time data, which is a known alternative for determining whether there are defects, such as leaking seals, in such systems. Further, Appellant’s arguments that replacing Weinstock’s leakage pressure transducers would complicate Weinstock’s system (Appeal Br. 11) are not persuasive as the Examiner does not propose such a combination. See Ans. 7. As a result, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 10 Rejection 2 Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and further recite that the control system is operable to predict a failure of a piston seal and a shaft seal, respectively. Appeal Br. 18–19. The Examiner found Muller discloses comparing measured pressure versus time curves to known standards in piston cylinder arrangements in order to predict failure in the piston seal. Non-Final Act. 9, citing Muller ¶¶ 1, 8, 17, 27. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have applied Muller’s technique to predict failure in the piston seals of Weinstock. Id. 9–10. For claim 4, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have used Muller’s techniques to predict failure in the shaft seals in Weinstock as well, because it would allow the determination of time prior to impending component failure. Id. 10. Appellant contends the Examiner’s additional reliance on Muller for disclosing failure prediction would improperly change the principle of operation of Weinstock, and is unnecessary as the pressure transducer of Weinstock already accomplishes the same task. Appeal Br. 12. We are not persuaded for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Answer. Ans. 7. In particular, incorporating the techniques of Muller would provide a more in-depth or sophisticated data analysis and better failure protection. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4. Rejection 3 Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to the claims 9, 17, and 18 subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 13–17. We select claim Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 11 9 as representative for disposition of this rejection, addressing claims 17 and 18 to the extent necessary. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 9 as unpatentable over Muller, Beuth, Imanishi, and Weis, the Examiner found Muller discloses an actuator system including cylinder, piston, control system including a microprocessor and memory device, and a pressure sensor in fluid communication with a first side of the cylinder and operable to measure pressure data during movement of the piston. Non-Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner found Muller discloses the control system is configured to compare the measured pressure data to known pressure data and determine the condition of the system, where the known pressure data is generated during one or more initial operating cycles of the piston within the cylinder and is stored in the memory device. Id. 11. However, the Examiner also found Muller does not disclose that the known/stored pressure data is generated during one or more initial operating cycles of the piston as recited in claim 9. Id. The Examiner determined one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that because pressure data is compared to previous pressure data, when the deice is first activated, the only previous pressure data available for comparison would be the one or more initial operating cycles as recited in claim 9. Id. 11–12. Therefore, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious to use the initial operating cycles in Muller for pressure data comparison. Id. 12. The Examiner found Muller does not explicitly disclose pressure versus time curves are compared to a previous measurements. Id. 13. Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 12 The Examiner further found Weis discloses pressure sensors are used to generate pressure versus time curves and comparing them to known standard pressure versus time curves. Id., citing Weis, col. 2, ll. 20–34. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have used the pressure versus time curves of Weis as the processed data of Muller (¶¶ 26, 27) that is compared to previously taken data to determine the magnitude of the discrepancy and aid in diagnosing defects in the system. Id. The Examiner found Muller does not disclose much detail on the valves that are used to actuate the cylinders. Id. 12. The Examiner found Beuth discloses a three-way valve that regulates movement of a piston, and as such, it would have been obvious to have used the three-way valve of Beuth on the device of Muller, because it is a simple substitution of a known element with predictable results, as an obvious engineering choice. Id. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues that Muller discloses comparing pressure data to lab data, which does not support the Examiner’s position that such is the same as comparing a measured pressure versus time to known pressure versus time curve data. Appeal Br. 13. As such, Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand from Muller that pressure versus time data from initial operation of the piston within the cylinder would be used as the baseline for pressure versus timed data that is measured later in the life cycle. Id. Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Weis to modify Muller, because Muller discloses monitoring pressure at points in time during operation, which is contrary to the disclosure of Weis. Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 13 Id. 14. Appellant argues also that Muller’s system already includes pressure measurements for determining the performance of the piston, such that there is insufficient rationale for including pressure versus time measurements, where Weis only discloses such measurements on the low pressure side of the piston. Id. Appellant argues also that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Muller to include a three-way valve in Beuth, because neither reference supports the contention that the valve controlling piston would be modified to be a three-way valve. Id. 13–14. Appellant argues Muller discloses hydraulic valves and Beuth discloses electrically-actuated control valves such that implementing Beuth’s valves in Muller’s system would improperly change the principle of operation of Muller’s hydraulic system. Id. 14. Issue Did the Examiner err in determining that the actuator system recited in claim 9 would have been obvious in view of the prior art of record? Discussion We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As to Appellant’s argument that Muller only compares pressure data to lab data, Muller discloses pressure readings begin with start-up or periodically for continuously running equipment and output from sensors may be recorded at established time intervals, which can be stored for subsequent processing or downloaded to determine wear. Muller ¶¶ 30, 31. Weis discloses measured pressures can be used to draw conclusions with respect to operability and defects of a device, such as defective seals, where pressures are recorded and Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 14 analyzed. Weis col. 2, ll. 19–22, 52–53. Weis discloses that initially process measured values may be used for comparison. Id. col. 2, ll. 24–27. Although Weis discloses two pressure values obtained at different points in time are sufficient for testing (Weis, col. 2, ll. 43–45), such a teaching does not exclude the use of more pressure versus time values in the form of a curve as argued by Appellant. See Reply Br. 5. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that because Weiss teaches a system for monitoring a system when “dry” whereas Muller’s system monitors pressure at points during operation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Muller in view of Weis. Appeal Br. 14. Similar to the discussion above with respect to the combination of Weinstock and Weis, Weis provides evidence that monitoring pressure versus time is a known technique for determining the existence of leaks in actuator systems such that applying the technique of Weis to the system of Muller is nothing more than applying a known alternative technique to a known system. As to Appellant’s position that Muller’s disclosure of drift in pressure over time (¶ 27), would not be a measure of the condition of the seal, Muller discloses “[p]ressure losses or fluctuations indicate one or more of . . . leaking seals.” Id. Thus, Muller discloses pressure versus time measurements are used to determine the condition of a seal. As such, even assuming Appellant is correct that Muller’s disclosure of “[d]rift in pressure over time is a measure of overall system deterioration” (Appeal Br. 13; Muller ¶ 27) is not a disclosure of the condition of the seals, Muller discloses using pressure over time to determine whether seals are leaking. Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 15 Moreover, and with additional reference to Appellant’s argument that adding the control system of Weis to Muller would have been unnecessary with respect to claim 17 (Appeal Br. 15), we agree with the Examiner that the additional data analysis provided by Weis’s disclosure as discussed above is not redundant, but would provide additional data analysis for determining the status of the system. Ans. 11. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that substituting the three way valve of Beuth into Muller’s hydraulic system would improperly change the principle of operation in Muller’s system, simply by making it reliant on electrical actuation. As the Examiner further explains in the Answer, any valve system can be implemented with conduit and basic on-off valves, and a three-way valve is more compact. Ans. 9. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s position, nor does Appellant sufficiently explain why a switch from hydraulic to electrical actuation would constitute an improper change to the principle of operation. In this regard, Muller discloses electronic signals are used in conjunction with its system. Muller ¶¶ 18, 26. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Appeal 2020-004785 Application 14/847,756 16 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5–7 103(a) Weinstock, Weis, Beuth, Imanishi 1, 2, 5–7 3, 4 103(a) Weinstock, Weis, Beuth, Imanishi, Muller 3, 4 9, 11–15, 17, 18, 20 103(a) Muller, Beuth, Imanishi, Weis 9, 11–15, 17, 18, 20 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9, 11– 15, 17, 18, 20 RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation