Duane Fetko

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

13095253 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
13/095,253 04/27/2011 Duane Fetko 9156-1902752 2241
28289 7590 09/02/2020
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
HIDALGO-HERNANDEZ, RUTH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DUANE FETKO
Appeal 2019-005939
Application 13/095,253
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and BRETT C. MARTIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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 1–12. Oral arguments were heard in
this case on August 19, 2020, a transcript of which will be entered into the
record in due course. 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 Ductmate Industries,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005939
Application 13/095,253
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to creating a seal in the joint of a fitting.”
Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for creating a manufactured sealed latched sheet
metal circular HVAC fitting comprising:
(a) providing a first subcomponent having an HVAC end;
(b) providing a second subcomponent having an HVAC
end;
(c) applying a sealant to the first subcomponent or the
second subcomponent; and
(d) joining the first subcomponent to the second
subcomponent by:
(i) creating a first subcomponent coupling on the
first subcomponent;
(ii) creating a second subcomponent coupling on the
second subcomponent; and
(iii) using the first subcomponent coupling, the
second subcomponent coupling, and the sealant to join the
first subcomponent to the second subcomponent to create
a manufactured sealed latched sheet metal circular HVAC
fitting having a sealed latched joint.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jensen US 2005/0017507 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Wang US 2007/0042193 A1 Feb. 22, 2007
Bloom US 2008/0303276 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
Bloom US 2008/0303276 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–10 103 Bloom, Jensen
11, 12 103 Bloom, Jensen, Wang

Appeal 2019-005939
Application 13/095,253
3
OPINION
Obviousness
Appellant argues that “[a]n integral latch connection in a fitting, as
claimed is different from sealing the connection of two individual pieces of
ductwork.” Reply Br. 1. Appellant further asserts that “Bloom does not
teach a latched integral fitting” as defined in the Specification. Reply Br. 2.
The Specification defines “a manufactured sealed latched sheet metal HVAC
fitting” as follows:
A manufactured sealed latched sheet metal HVAC fitting is an
HVAC fitting which is sold as one piece that is constructed of
two or more parts having a latched connection that has sealant
in the latch connection when it is manufactured that reduces air
leakage from the HVAC fitting when the fitting is placed in an
HVAC system. The mechanical connection or latch connection
is meant to be permanent such that once it is formed it is not
meant to be separable.
Spec. ¶ 23. The definition further states that “[t]he integral joins [sic, joints]
are joints within the fitting itself and not connections to other pieces of
HVAC ductwork.” Id.
As Appellant correctly notes, “Bloom teaches sealing the connection
between two separate pieces of ductwork.” Reply Br. 2. The joint in
Bloom, where the seal is located, is a typical ductwork joint that can be
easily assembled and disassembled. As seen in the definition above, a
manufactured sealed latch joint “is meant to be permanent such that once it
is formed it is not meant to be separable.” Spec. ¶ 23. Therefore, the joint
and seal in Bloom is not a manufactured sealed latched joint as defined in
the Specification and recited in the claims.
Appellant further argues that “there is no explanation of how a
manufacturer would use the Bloom duct manufacturing process to make a
Appeal 2019-005939
Application 13/095,253
4
HVAC fitting” as taught in Jensen, because “[t]hose products are produced
differently.” Appeal Br. 10. The joint in Jensen shows two interlocking
hook portions 20 and 26, but there is nothing in Jensen stating that such a
joint is meant to be permanent. See Jensen Fig. 2A. Further, Jensen
discloses that the joint in the fitting allows for rotation of the fitting so as to
achieve different angles. Such rotation may be possible with a seal, but it
would certainly at least be frustrated to an extent by the insertion of a sealant
material and the Examiner offers no explanation as to why or how one of
skill in the art would have incorporated such a seal while still maintaining
the desired rotational functionality taught in Jensen.
In sum, the Examiner has not given proper weight to the definition
found in the Specification of certain terms in the claims. Although the
Examiner has found a sealed ductwork joint in the prior art as taught in
Bloom, Bloom does not teach the specifics of a manufactured sealed latch
joint as defined in the Specification. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED.
More specifically,
Appeal 2019-005939
Application 13/095,253
5
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10 103 Bloom, Jensen 1–10
11, 12 103 Bloom, Jensen,
Wang
11, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–12

REVERSED