Dieter Frank et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

13994248 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 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.
13/994,248 06/14/2013 Dieter Frank 815293 1086
95683 7590 09/25/2019
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
EXAMINER
CHAUDRY, ATIF H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2019 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DIETER FRANK, FRANK MEISSNER, and UWE STABENOW
____________________

Appeal 2018-001631
Application 13/994,248
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27.2 An oral hearing
was held on September 10, 2019. A transcript is included in the record
(“Transcript”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 WABCO
Europe BVBA. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 8, 10–12, 15, 16, 20, and 21 are indicated as including allowable
subject matter. Final Act. 12.
Appeal 2018-001631
Application 13/994,248

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and is reproduced
below.
1. A compressed air supply system for operating a pneumatic
system of a vehicle, the compressed air supply system
comprising:
a compressed air feed;
a compressed air port leading to the pneumatic system;
a vent port to the environment;
a main pneumatic line between the compressed air feed
and the compressed air port, the main pneumatic line including:
an air dryer, and
a pilot-operated non-return valve having a control
chamber divided into a control space and a venting space by
one of a control piston and a seal on the control piston, wherein
the pilot-operated non-return valve is configured to open
automatically in a filling direction from the compressed air feed
to the compressed air port and is further configured to be
released to allow flow in a venting direction from the
compressed air port to the compressed air feed; and
a vent line between the compressed air port and the vent
port, the vent line comprising a vent valve.

Appeal 2018-001631
Application 13/994,248

3
REJECTION
References Basis Claims
Behmenburg,3 Hennig,4 and
Kubik5
§ 103 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27

OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27 as a group.
Appeal Br. 3–9. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–7, 9, 13, 14,
17–19, and 22–27 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Behmenburg teaches the majority of features
recited in claim 1, including “a pilot operated non-return valve over-ride
mechanism comprising a separate pilot operated valve 14 across non-return
valve 6.” Final Act. 3–4 (emphasis added); see Behmenburg, Fig. 1. The
Examiner finds Behmenburg’s separate over-ride mechanism 14 and
non-return valve 6 differ from the claimed invention, “a pilot operated non-
return valve,” which requires both functionalities to be performed by one
device rather than separate devices. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that
Hennig teaches a pneumatic system having “a fluidically releasable non-
return valve 328 in the form of a pilot operated non-return valve (from
solenoid valve 318) as check valve over-ride mechanism (Para 23,25) for
reverse flow across non-return valve.” Id. The Examiner proposes
modifying Behmenburg’s separate valves to be a single valve based on the
teachings from Hennig. Id. The Examiner reasons that such an arrangement

3 US 6,332,623 B1, issued Dec. 25, 2001.
4 US 2013/0306192 A1, published Nov. 21, 2013.
5 US 3,807,175, issued Apr. 30, 1974.
Appeal 2018-001631
Application 13/994,248

4
would have been obvious “in order to reduce number of assembly parts by
eliminating the need for separate check valve by-pass valve.” Id. at 4–5.
The Examiner cites Kubik as teaching the specific chambers for the “pilot-
operated non-return valve” recited in claim 1, and proposes further
modifying Behmenburg’s teachings accordingly. Id. at 5–6.
Appellant does not dispute the majority of the Examiner’s findings or
rationale. Notably, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings
regarding the teachings of Behmenburg, the Examiner’s findings regarding
the teachings of Hennig, the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of
Kubik, or the Examiner’s rationale for the further modifications based on
Kubik’s teachings. Although Appellant disputes whether one skilled in the
art would have modified Behmenburg’s teachings based on those of Hennig,
Appellant never addresses the rationale provided by the Examiner for the
proposed modification based on Hennig’s teachings (i.e., simplification
based on reduction of parts). See Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant, instead, contends that “[t]he Office fails to articulate any
reason why the teachings of Hennig would be relevant to modifying the
level adjustment device of Behmenburg.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant explains
that “Hennig generally describes a tire management system (and not a level
adjustment device for vehicles with air springs as described by Behmenburg)
and specifically describes pilot check valves located in conduits between an
outlet port of a regulator and individual tires” (id.), but this does not identify
Examiner error. Appellant acknowledges that both Hennig and Behmenburg
relate to pneumatic systems. See id. (“Hennig perform[s] a function in a tire
management system—namely allowing air to flow into or out of tires” and
Behmenburg describes an “air spring adjustment system.”). As the
Appeal 2018-001631
Application 13/994,248

5
Examiner explains, Hennig is cited simply to show that “combining the
separate reverse flow path parallel to the check valve into a single pilot-
operated check valve” was known at the time of the invention (Final Act.
13), which Appellant does not dispute. At the oral hearing, Appellant
acknowledged that at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art would
have understood the structure required by a “pilot-operated non-return
valve” (i.e., combining a separate reverse flow path parallel to a check valve
into a single pilot-operated check valve” was known at the time of the
invention). See Transcript 3:4–5 (“I think a pilot-operated non-return valve
is known to a person of skill in the art.”).
Appellant further alleges impermissible hindsight, but fails to offer
any persuasive explanation as to why the Examiner’s reasoning for the
proposed combination is based solely on Appellant’s disclosure. Appeal Br.
7. Appellant contends that “the Office ignores disclosure in the
Behmenburg reference that indicates that it would not be suitable to replace
the combination of valves and flow paths identified by the Office with a
single valve.” Id. at 8 (citing Behmenburg 2:10–15). The cited portion of
Behmenburg states that “[t]he advantages achieved with the invention are to
be seen in particular in the fact that the air springs are emptied through a
pneumatically controlled distribution valve arranged between the air springs
and the air dryer to which large flow cross-sections can be conducted . . . [to
allow] a rapid emptying of the air springs.” Behmenburg 2:10–15. As the
Examiner explains, and Appellant does not dispute, “Behmenburg as
modified would be able to open the pilot controlled check valve in [the]
reverse direction to allow rapid emptying of the air springs (as shown by
Kubik).” Final Act. 13.
Appeal 2018-001631
Application 13/994,248

6
Because Appellant fails to apprise us of Examiner error, we sustain
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and 22–27.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 17–19, and
22–27 is AFFIRMED.
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