Wen Wang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

2020001316 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
15/612,484 06/02/2017 Wen Wang 139650.235 4458
27192 7590 09/28/2020
FRANCIS C. HAND
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, ET AL
5 BECKER FARM ROAD
ROSELAND, NJ 07068-1739
EXAMINER
SANCHEZ-MEDINA, REINALDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2020 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 WEN WANG and BRION GOMPPER
___________________

Appeal 2020-001316
Application 15/612,484
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, 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 1–9.2 Final Act. 4–9. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Component Hardware Group, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner addressed claims 1–11 in the Final Office Action. In an
“Amendment After Appeal” dated September 20, 2019, Appellant cancelled
claims 10 and 11.
Appeal 2020-001316
Application 15/612,484

2
The claims are directed to a valve for a faucet assembly. Spec. 1:4.
Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A valve for a faucet assembly comprising
a bonnet of tubular shape having a pair of diametrically
disposed openings in a periphery thereof;
a first valve body coaxially disposed in said bonnet in
stationary relation thereto, said valve body defining a pair of
diametrically disposed passages therein for passage of water
therethrough from a source of water;
a second valve body coaxially disposed in said bonnet in
contact with said first body, said second valve body defining a pair of
passages communicating with said openings in said bonnet;
a spiral retaining ring biasing said first valve body into contact
with said second valve body; and
a stem rotatably mounted in and projecting from said bonnet,
said stem being operatively connected to said second valve body for
rotating said second valve body between a first position with said pair
of passages therein aligned with said diametrically disposed passages
in said first valve body to allow water from the source of water to
flow through said first valve body and through said openings in said
bonnet and a second position with said pair of passages therein out of
alignment with said diametrically disposed passages in said first valve
body to block a flow of water from the source of water from flowing
through said first valve body.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Anthony (US 3,831,621, issued Aug. 27, 1974) and Rabby
(US 5,642,754, issued July 1, 1997). Final Act. 5–7.
II. Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Anthony, Rabby, and Rudelick (US 4,564,040, issued Jan.
14, 1986). Final Act. 7–9.
Appeal 2020-001316
Application 15/612,484

3
ANALYSIS
Objection to the Drawing
Independent claim 1 recites a valve including “a spiral retaining ring
biasing said first valve body into contact with said second valve body.”
Independent claim 7 includes similar language.
The Examiner objects to Figure 2 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83 as failing to
depict the “spiral retaining ring” recited in independent claims 1 and 7.
Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that retaining ring 32, as
depicted in Figure 2, is planar rather than spiral. Final Act. 4; Ans. 7.
Appellant contends that the ends of retaining ring 32, as depicted in Figure
2, are in different planes and that the contour lines of retaining ring 32
indicate that the ring is twisted. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant asks us to review the objection. Appeal Br. 5–7.
Ordinarily, an objection to a drawing under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) is
reviewable by timely petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.113 rather than by appeal
to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1077–78 (BPAI 2010); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.113; MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 1201 (9th edition, rev. June 2020).3
However, “when the objection is ‘determinative of the rejection’ the matter
may be addressed by the Board.” MPEP § 1201 (citing In re Hengehold,
440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971)).
The Examiner rejects certain claims as detailed above. Final Act. 4–
9; Ans. 7–9. Appellant contends that the rejections are in error because
neither Anthony nor Rabby teaches or suggests a spiral retaining ring

3 All reference to the MPEP will be to the most recent edition and revision,
unless otherwise noted.
Appeal 2020-001316
Application 15/612,484

4
“biasing said first valve body into contact with said second body,” as
claimed. Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 1–3. Consequently, we may address
the objection because whether Figure 2 depicts a spiral retaining ring is
determinative, at least in part, of the rejections. MPEP § 1201.
As discussed earlier, claims 1 and 7 recite a spiral retaining ring
“biasing said first valve body into contact with said second valve body.”
Figure 2 depicts retaining ring 32. Spec. 5:12–16. Figures 3–5 depict
retaining ring 32 compressed in circumferential groove 33 of bonnet 16,
with ring 32 biasing first valve body 18 into contact with second valve body
19. Id.; see also Spec. 6:17–23.
We acknowledge that when Figure 2 is viewed in isolation, it is a
close call as to whether retaining ring 32 is in a single plane or not. This is
true because as retaining ring 32 appears in perspective in Figure 2, it has a
shallow ramp angle, and it is too thin to allow shade lines further defining
the shape of the ring. However, we must not view Figure 2 in isolation. As
Appellant correctly points out, the Specification clearly and consistently
teaches that retaining ring 32 is spiral and provides a biasing force. Appeal
Br. 5–6; see, e.g., Spec. 5:12–22 (“spiral retaining ring 32” biases valve
body 18), 6:17–7:3 (“spiral retaining ring 32” places a compressive force
against valve body 18). Viewing Figure 2 in light of these disclosures, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the end of spiral
retaining ring 32 nearest the plane of the drawing is closer than the opposite
end by about the thickness of the ring. Therefore, the Examiner does not
persuade us that Figure 2 fails to depict the spiral retaining ring recited in
claims 1 and 7. On this basis, we reverse the objection to the drawing.

Appeal 2020-001316
Application 15/612,484

5
Rejection I
Appellant contends that neither Anthony nor Rabby teaches or
suggests a spiral retaining ring “biasing said first valve body into contact
with said second body,” as recited in claims 1 and 7. Appeal Br. 7–10;
Reply Br. 1–3. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellant.
As noted earlier, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and 7 would have been obvious from the combined
teachings of Anthony and Rabby. Final Act. 4–9; Ans. 7–9. Specifically,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute
Rabby’s retaining ring 86 for Anthony’s washer 33. Final Act. 5, 7.
The Examiner finds that Anthony’s retaining ring (washer 33) biases a
second valve body (rotor disk 22) into a first valve body (stator disk 27).
Final Act. 5, 6–7; Ans. 7–8. This finding is not supported by the reference.
Anthony discloses a valve cartridge 7 having two valve bodies (rotor
disk 22, stator disk 27). Anthony 2:62–63, 3:35–36, 3:51–53, 4:5–11, Figs.
1–4. During assembly, Anthony’s washer 33 is inwardly crimped so that it
is “fixed in position” in circular recess 34, and in this position, washer 33
places second rubber “O” ring 32 under compression so that it provides a
compressive force on the valve bodies (rotor disk 22, stator disk 27).
Anthony 4:12–27, Figs. 2, 3; see also Appeal Br. 8 (noting that washer 33 is
positioned in a groove).
In sum, Anthony’s retaining ring (washer 33) is in a fixed position
within circular recess 34 and, as such, cannot provide a biasing force.
Rather, it is Anthony’s second “O” ring 32 that provides a biasing force to
the valve bodies.
Appeal 2020-001316
Application 15/612,484

6
The Examiner finds that Rabby’s spiral wound retaining ring 86
corresponds to a spiral retaining ring and provides a biasing force as
claimed. Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 5, 7 (reasoning that substituting
Rabby’s ring 86 for Anthony’s washer 33 would provide a biasing force).
This finding is not supported by the reference.
Rabby describes a ball valve that includes a spiral wound retaining
ring 86. Rabby 3:20–22, 3:41–44, 4:39–42, Fig. 1. Retaining ring 86 is
positioned in annular groove 82 so that ring 86 prevents removal of locking
ring 84. Rabby 4:39–42, Fig. 1. In light of these disclosures, Rabby does
not disclose that retaining ring 86 provides a biasing force. Rather, Rabby
discloses that ring 86 fits into a groove (annular groove 82) so that it
prevents removal of something (locking ring 84).
As explained, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Rabby’s
retaining ring 86 provides a biasing force. Consequently, Rabby does not
teach or suggest a spiral retaining ring that biases a first valve into contact
with a second valve as claimed. Further, even if Rabby’s retaining ring 86
produces a biasing force due to its spiral configuration, it could not apply
that force to a valve body when positioned within Anthony’s circular recess
34, as proposed by the Examiner, because, in view of Anthony’s teachings,
the modified retaining ring would be in a fixed position within circular
recess 34 and, as such, would not provide a biasing force.
For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that neither Anthony nor
Rabby teaches or suggests a spiral retaining ring “biasing said first valve
body into contact with said second body,” as recited in claims 1 and 7. See
Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 1–3. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
Appeal 2020-001316
Application 15/612,484

7
1, 2, and 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Anthony and
Rabby.

Rejection II
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 3, 4, 8, and
9 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Anthony,
Rabby, and Rudelick. Final Act. 7–8. The claims at issue depend ultimately
from either independent claim 1 or independent claim 7. The Examiner does
not rely on Rudelick to remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of
Anthony and Rabby as applied to claims 1 and 7. Id. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Anthony, Rabby, and Rudelick.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7 103 Anthony, Rabby 1, 2, 5–7
3, 4, 8, 9 103 Antony, Rabby,
Rudelick
3, 4, 8, 9
Overall
Outcome
1–9

REVERSED