Victaulic CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 23, 20202020002969 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2020) 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. 15/387,894 12/22/2016 Anthony J. Cuvo 22150.0398U2 4358 23859 7590 10/23/2020 Ballard Spahr LLP SUITE 1600 999 PEACHTREE STREET ATLANTA, GA 30309-4421 EXAMINER CHOI, WILLIAM SOON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/23/2020 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): USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANTHONY J. CUVO and MATTHEW A. BOWMAN Appeal 2020-002969 Application 15/387,894 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, 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 1–16. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Victaulic Company. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-002969 Application 15/387,894 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an adapter coupling. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A coupling for joining a flanged pipe element to a plain end pipe element, said coupling comprising: a plurality of segments attached to one another in spaced apart relation end to end surrounding a central space, each of said segments comprising: a first side and a second side oppositely disposed; a first channel positioned proximate to said first side and extending circumferentially around and facing said central space; a first flange positioned proximate to said second side and extending outwardly away from said central space, said first flange having a plurality of holes therethrough; a second channel positioned between said first channel and said flange and extending circumferentially around and facing said central space; wherein said coupling further comprises: a split ring positioned in said first channel; a seal positioned in said second channel; a tube positioned within said central space and extending outwardly from said second sides of said segments, said tube engaging said seal. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kim US 2006/0208486 A1 Sept. 21, 2006 Bancroft US 2014/0070529 A1 Mar. 13, 2014 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 6–13, 15, 16 102(a)(1) Kim 2–5, 14 103 Kim, Bancroft Appeal 2020-002969 Application 15/387,894 3 OPINION Claim 1 The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 includes a limitation-by-limitation comparison of Kim to claim 1. Final Act. 2–3. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Kim discloses the “first flange” limitation and the “tube” limitation, as claimed. “a first flange positioned proximate to said second side and extending outwardly away from said central space” The Examiner cites sidewalls 33 of Kim’s pipe joint as the claimed first flange. Sidewalls 33 are depicted in the partial view of Kim’s Figure 5 and in Kim’s Figure 7, reproduced below with the Examiner’s annotations. Annotated Copy of Portion of Kim’s Figure 5 (Ans. 9) Appeal 2020-002969 Application 15/387,894 4 Annotated Copy of Kim’s Figure 7 (Ans. 4) The Examiner’s annotated version of Kim’s Figure 5 depicts a part of the pipe joint with a rectangle added to indicate the Examiner’s identification of the claimed “central space” and an upward arrow labeled “33 extending outwardly away from the central space.” Ans. 9 (capitalization omitted). The Examiner’s annotated version of Kim’s Figure 7 provides a perspective view of a pipe joint and includes a rectangle identifying the Examiner’s identification of the claimed “central space.” Ans. 4. Appellant argues Kim’s sidewalls 33 extend inward, not outward as claimed. Appeal Br. 3–4, 8–10. According to Appellant, Kim’s sidewalls 33 are fundamentally unlike the flanges described in the Specification in both structure and function. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds, and we agree, that the claim language requires considering the claimed flange from the perspective of the central space. Ans. 9. The plain language of claim 1 defines the flange as “extending outwardly away from said central space,” and considering Kim’s sidewall 33 from the perspective of the central space, sidewalls 33 extend Appeal 2020-002969 Application 15/387,894 5 outwardly away from the central space. Sidewalls 33 do not extend inwardly away from the central space. Notably, the claims do not define the flange with respect to the horizontal portions of the claimed segments, for example. In Kim’s Figures, sidewall 33 could be said to extend radially inwardly from horizontal portion 30, but claim 1 does not define the flange in terms of the segments nor does claim 1 otherwise distinguish sidewall 33 from the first flange, as claimed. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that sidewall 33 extends outwardly away from the claimed central space and satisfies “first flange” limitation of claim 1. “said coupling further comprises: . . . a tube positioned within said central space and extending outwardly from said second sides of said segments” The Examiner finds element 11 of Kim’s pipe joint satisfies the claimed “tube” limitation. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that Kim’s element 11 cannot be the claimed tube because Kim describes element 11 as welded or otherwise fixed to pipes 10. Appellant contends that, because element 11 is welded to a pipe, it is part of the pipe and not part of the coupling, as claimed. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner responds, and we agree, that Kim’s element 11 satisfies the “tube” limitation regardless of whether Kim teaches welding it to pipe 10. Kim’s Figure 5 is reproduced in its entirety below. Appeal 2020-002969 Application 15/387,894 6 Kim’s Figure 5 Kim’s Figure 5 is an exploded perspective view of a pipe joint that depicts pipes 10 and elements 11 as separate structures. In fact, as described by Kim, “the pipe joint device of the present invention comprises two flanges 11, the packing 20, the clamps 30 and adjusting members 40.” Kim ¶ 37. Nothing in claim 1 requires that the claimed tube be removable or otherwise separable from a pipe. In fact, the structures recited in claim 1 are not limited in the manner in which they may be joined. Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that Kim’s element 11 cannot satisfy the “tube” limitation because Kim describes it as welded or otherwise fixed to a pipe. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Kim’s element 11 satisfies the “tube” limitation. Having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we disagree with Appellant’s arguments and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Kim. Appeal 2020-002969 Application 15/387,894 7 Claims 2–16 Appellant relies on the same arguments addressed above for claims 2– 16. See Appeal Br. 6–12. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons explained above, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–13 and 15–16 as anticipated by Kim and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5 and 14 as unpatentable in view of Kim and Bancroft. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are sustained. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6–13, 15, 16 102(a)(1) Kim 1, 6–13, 15, 16 2–5, 14 103 Kim, Bancroft 2–5, 14 Overall Outcome 1–16 TIME PERIOD FOR 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