Kremer, Randi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

15043681 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
15/043,681 02/15/2016 Randi Kremer CBF-102US 5554
23122 7590 10/31/2019
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
EXAMINER
LINFORD, JAMES ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 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):
PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RANDI KREMER and JOSHUA LEOFSKY

Appeal 2019-003549
Application 15/043,681
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 11–24. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Campbell Fittings, Inc. of Boyertown, Pennsylvania. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003549
Application 15/043,681

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A hose coupler comprising:
a hose adapter including opposing ends, an interior surface
forming a fluid passage between the opposed ends, and an
exterior surface including a series of barbs for engaging an
interior surface of a hose; and
a ferrule having a proximal end connected to the hose adapter at
an attachment point and a distal end defining an opening
through which the hose is inserted, the ferrule being positioned
to at least partially surround the exterior surface of the hose
adapter, the ferrule having an interior surface facing the exterior
surface of the hose adapter, the ferrule defining at least one
cutting rib extending from the interior surface of the ferrule and
having a corner or edge for piercing an outer layer of the hose,
and the ferrule defining a plurality of compression ribs located
distally of the at least one cutting rib, wherein an entirety of
each compression rib is a rounded surface extending from the
interior surface of the ferrule for compressing the hose against
the series of barbs, wherein the at least one cutting rib extends
closer toward a longitudinal axis of the hose adapter than the
plurality of compression ribs,
wherein the ferrule is moveable between a pre-swaged
configuration in which the at least one cutting rib faces the
outer layer of the hose, and a swaged configuration in which the
at least one cutting rib pierces the outer layer of the hose.

Appeal 2019-003549
Application 15/043,681

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 6,764,106 B1 July 20, 2004
Lefere et al. (“Lefere”) US 2004/0032124 A1 Feb. 19, 2004
Lamontia US 2010/0117355 A1 May 13, 2010
Andres DE 1273931 July 25, 1968
Duffield et al.
(“Duffield”)
GB 2022744 A Dec. 19, 1979
Sautmann DE 10126429 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
Gorski DE 10246226 A1 Apr. 15, 2004

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–18, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Duffield and Sautmann.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Duffield, Sautmann, and Smith.
Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Duffield, Sautmann, and Lefere.
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–18, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Duffield and Gorski.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Duffield, Gorski, and Smith.
Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Duffield, Gorski, and Lefere.

2 For purposes of clarity, we separate the Examiner’s alternative grounds of
rejection into separate statements. Also, although the Examiner sets forth
separate statements for the rejection of some claims (Final Act. 2–3, 12), we
consolidate the statements into a single ground of rejection because they are
each based upon same the combination of references.
Appeal 2019-003549
Application 15/043,681

4
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–18, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Duffield and Andres.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Duffield, Andres, and Smith.
Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Duffield, Andres, and Lefere.
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–18, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Duffield and Lamontia.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Duffield, Lamontia, and Smith.
Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Duffield, Lamontia, and Lefere.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 calls for a “hose coupler” including a “ferrule
defining at least one cutting rib extending from the interior surface of the
ferrule and having a corner or edge for piercing an outer layer of the hose.”
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Independent claim 14,
includes a similar limitation. See id. at 14.
The Examiner finds Duffield’s ferrule 31 includes buttress 41, which
corresponds to the “at least one cutting rib.” See Final Act. 4. In support of
this finding, the Examiner copies and annotates a portion of Duffield’s
Figure 3, which is reproduced below. Id.
Appeal 2019-003549
Application 15/043,681

5

Duffield’s “Figure 3 shows a half-sectional view of a swaged-type end
fitting attached to a hose end” (Duffield 2:1–2); and, the annotations identify
portions of the fitting that correspond to portions of the claimed hose coupler
(Final Act. 4–5). Specifically, the Examiner uses number “1001”
(hereinafter “buttress 1001”) to identify the portion of Duffield’s fitting that
corresponds to the claimed “at least one cutting rib” and number “4001”
(hereinafter “surface 4001”) to correspond to the claimed “corner or edge.”3
Id. at 4.
The Appellant argues that surface 4001 of buttress 1001 is not “a
corner or edge,” as required by claims 1 and 14. See Appeal Br. 7, 9; Reply
Br. 2, 3. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
The Examiner offers two dictionary definitions of “edge” in support
of the finding that surface 4001 of buttress 1001 includes a “corner or edge.”
See Ans. 6 (citing American Heritage Online Dictionary and Merriam-
Webster’s Online Dictionary); see also Final Act. 4, 13. Each dictionary
definition is applied to the copied and annotated portion of Figure 3 shown

3 The Examiner identifies other cutting ribs (i.e., numbers 1002 and 1003) of
Duffield’s fitting, but explains that neither of these other cutting ribs
correspond to the claimed “at least one cutting rib.” Ans. 8; see Final
Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2019-003549
Application 15/043,681

6
above, and the Examiner finds that Duffield’s disclosure implies that
buttress 1001 has a cutting edge, but not a sharp cutting edge. Ans. 7 (citing
Duffield, col. 3, ll. 33–36).
Duffield at page 3, lines 33–36 concerns the arrangement shown in
Duffield’s Figure 3 and describes, “buttresses 41 have an approximately
constant cross-section and, unlike the arrangement shown in Figures 1 and 2,
none of the buttresses is formed with a sharp cutting edge.”4 The foregoing
suggests that buttresses 41 have a structure with an approximately constant
cross-section, which is otherwise non-specific in shape or profile, except for
the lack of a sharp cutting edge. As for Duffield’s Figure 3, we determine
that the figure does not show surface 4001 clearly enough to determine that
it includes a corner or edge. Consequently, we determine that the
Examiner’s finding that Duffield’s disclosure implies that buttress 1001 has
a cutting edge, but not a sharp cutting edge, is inadequately supported.
Further, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from Duffield’s description at page 3, lines 33–36 that the lack of
a sharp cutting edge is significant. Indeed, the reference to the sharp cutting
edge in the embodiment shown in Figures 1 and 2 is directed to Duffield’s
reference number 28, which is described as a sharp end portion of the
buttress-forming helix.5 Duffield 2:83–84. The buttress-forming helix of

4 Figures 1 and 2 are directed to one embodiment of Duffield’s invention,
specifically, “a screw-type end fitting attached to a hose end.” Duffield
1:124–129. Duffield’s Figure 3 is directed to a different embodiment,
specifically, “a swaged-type end fitting attached to a hose end.” Duffield
2:1–2. The Examiner relies on the embodiment as shown in Figure 3. Final
Act. 4–5.
5 Duffield’s reference number 28 is also referred to as “sharp cutting profile”
and “cutting edge.” Duffield 2:69–70, 115.
Appeal 2019-003549
Application 15/043,681

7
the arrangement of Figures 1 and 2 also includes buttresses 20 and their
crests 22, which are described as “slightly rounded” to avoid a sharp edge so
as to not sever hose 12’s wire-braid reinforcement. Duffield 2:25–40, 48–
63, 123–124; see id. at Figs. 1–2; Appeal Br. 7 (citing Duffield 2:59–60).
Additionally, we determine that the sectional view of buttress 1001 and its
crest (i.e., surface 4001), is depicted in the same manner as buttresses 20 and
crests 22 in Figure 1, and is described as having the same cross-sectional
profile. See Duffield 3:23–31, Figs. 1 and 3; Appeal Br. 7 (citing Duffield
3:23–31). Therefore, we determine that it is reasonable that one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that buttress 1001’s crest (i.e., surface
4001) may also be slightly rounded. If such were the case, then surface
4001 would be devoid of a corner or edge.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner’s finding
that the claimed “corner or edge” of the “at least one cutting rib” reads on
surface 4001 of buttress 1001 is inadequately supported. The Examiner does
not rely on the teachings of Sautmann, Gorski, Andres, Lamontia, Smith,
and/or Lefere, in any manner that remedies the deficient finding. Thus, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1 and 14 and
dependent claims 2–9, 11–13, and 15–24.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–
18, 21–24
§ 103 Duffield,
Sautmann

1, 2, 4–9, 11,
13–18, 21–24
3 § 103 Duffield,
Sautmann, Smith
3
Appeal 2019-003549
Application 15/043,681

8
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 12, 19, 20 § 103 Duffield,
Sautmann, Lefere
11, 12, 19, 20
1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–18,
21–24
§ 103 Duffield,
Gorski
1, 2, 4–9, 11,
13–18, 21–24
3 § 103 Duffield,
Gorski, Smith
3
11, 12, 19, 20 § 103 Duffield,
Gorski, Lefere
11, 12, 19, 20
1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–18,
21–24
§ 103 Duffield,
Andres
1, 2, 4–9, 11,
13–18, 21–24
3 § 103 Duffield,
Andres, Smith
3
11, 12, 19, 20 § 103 Duffield,
Andres, Lefere
11, 12, 19, 20
1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–18,
21–24
§ 103 Duffield,
Lamontia
1, 2, 4–9, 11,
13–18, 21–24
3 § 103 Duffield,
Lamontia, Smith
3
11, 12, 19, 20 § 103 Duffield,
Lamontia, Lefere
11, 12, 19, 20
Overall Outcome 1–9, 11–24

REVERSED