90009986 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2014)

Ex Parte 7849884 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 2014

90009986 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2014)

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. 90/009,986 02/14/2012 7849884 DICKEL - 1 REEXAMINATION 7076 25889 7590 02/25/2014 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. 1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD ROSLYN, NY 11576 EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3993 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2014 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) 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KOTTMAN GOSLA GmbH ________________ Appeal 2013-010705 Reexamination Control 90/009,986 Patent No. US 7,849,884 B2 1 Technology Center 3900 ________________ Before JAMES T. MOORE, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant/Patent Owner appeals from the Examiner’s final 1 decision rejecting claims 1-7. Claim 1, the sole independent claim on 2 1 Issued Dec. 14, 2010 to Heiko Dickel (the “′884 patent”). The ′884 patent issued from Appl. 12/583,788, filed August 26, 2009. Appeal 2013-010705 Reexamination Control 90/009,986 Patent No. 7,849,884 B2 2 appeal, has been amended during the reexamination proceeding. We have 1 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) (2012) and 35 U.S.C. § 306 (2012). 2 We REVERSE. 3 Claim 1 recites: 4 1. A pressure hose for a water-carrying 5 system, comprising: 6 an inner hose made of plastic and being 7 formed as a corrugated hose with parallel 8 corrugations; 9 an outer jacket made of a braided material 10 and directly surrounding the inner hose; 11 at least one connector piece having a tubular 12 connector, onto which a hose end is pressed by 13 means of a pressure sleeve, said tubular connector 14 having circumferential ring beads that are adapted 15 to an inner contour of the corrugated hose, 16 wherein at least some of the ring beads are 17 provided with notches that run axially, and 18 wherein the inner hose is pressed into 19 grooves of the connector formed between the ring 20 beads, by means of the pressure sleeve. 21 The Examiner’s findings, conclusions and reasoning are stated in an 22 Answer (“Answer” or “Ans.”) mailed May 16, 2013 and in a Final Office 23 Action (“Final Rej’n”) mailed September 14, 2012. The Examiner rejects 24 claims 1 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 25 Bryant (GB 1 240 562, publ. July 28, 1971) and Li et. al. (US 5,853,202, 26 issued Dec. 29, 1998); and claims 2-4 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 27 over Bryant, Li, and Bauman et. al. (US 3,605,817, issued Sep. 20, 1971). 28 (Ans. 4 and 5). 29 Appeal 2013-010705 Reexamination Control 90/009,986 Patent No. 7,849,884 B2 3 The Patent Owner’s position is stated in a Brief on Appeal (“Appeal 1 Brief” or “App. Br.”) dated February 20, 2013 and a Reply Brief (“Reply 2 Brief” or “Reply Br.”) dated June 17, 2013. Neither the Appeal Brief nor 3 the Reply Brief identifies any other post-grant proceeding or any litigation 4 involving the ′884 patent. (See, e.g., App. Br. 2). 5 Bryant describes a connector including a left-hand end 1 and a right-6 hand end 3; a corrugated hose 5 provided with an outer braiding 6; and a 7 metal ferrule 7. (Bryant 2, ll. 16-20; 27-30 and 46-49; id., fig. 2). At the 8 left-hand end 1 of the connector is a series of continuous backwardly 9 inclined serrations 2. (Bryant, col. 2, ll. 16-20). The left-hand end 1 of the 10 connector engages the corrugated hose 5 via the serrations 2. (Bryant 2, ll. 11 49-53). In assembling the structure, the outer braiding 6 of the corrugated 12 hose 5 is pulled over the right-hand end 3. The metal ferrule 7 is then fitted 13 over the outer braiding 6 as depicted in Figure 2. (Bryant 2, ll. 49-57). 14 Li describes an end fitting assembly 10 including a stem portion 11 15 inserted into an inner channel 32 of a hose 30. (Li, col. 3, ll. 20-22). The 16 stem portion 11 engages an inner surface 34 of the hose 30. (Li, col. 3, l. 64 17 – col. 4, l. 1). The stem portion 11 further includes an anti-rotation element 18 14 comprising a barb 15 having depressions/resisting elements 18. (Li, col. 19 3, ll. 58-63 and col. 4, ll. 1-7). As depicted in Figure 1, the depressions 18 20 radially align with the barb 15 when the stem portion 11 is inserted into the 21 inner channel 32 of the hose 30. The depressions 18 engage the inner 22 surface 34 of the hose 30 to prevent rotation of the hose 30 with respect to 23 the stem portion 11. (Li, col. 4, ll. 1-7). 24 Appeal 2013-010705 Reexamination Control 90/009,986 Patent No. 7,849,884 B2 4 The Examiner finds that the arrangement of the corrugated hose 5, the 1 serrations 2, the left-hand end 1, and the metal ferrule 7, as depicted in 2 Figure 2 of Bryant, satisfies the limitation “wherein the inner hose is pressed 3 into grooves of the connector formed between the ring beads, by means of 4 the pressure sleeve.” (Ans. 4-5). This finding appears premised on the 5 Examiner’s conclusion that Bryant discloses all the parts of the claimed 6 structure and that the aforementioned limitation is merely a product by 7 process limitation. (Ans. 5). The Patent Owner disagrees. (See App. Br. 7-8 8; see also Reply Br. 2-3). 9 Bryant does not disclose “wherein the inner hose is pressed into 10 grooves . . . by means of the pressure sleeve.” (Italics added for emphasis). 11 The Examiner relies on the corrugated hose 5, the serrations 2, and the metal 12 ferrule 7 in Bryant to describe the Appellants claimed inner hose, grooves, 13 and pressure sleeve, respectively. (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner’s findings, 14 however, are deficient because the corrugated hose 5 is not pressed into the 15 serrations 2 “by means of” the metal ferrule 7. (See App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 16 1 and 2). 17 Bryant only teaches that the metal ferrule 7 is pulled over an outer 18 braiding 6, not that the metal ferrule 7 engages the corrugated hose 5. (See 19 Bryant col. 2, ll. 53-57 (explaining that the metal ferrule is fitted over the 20 braiding)). Indeed, as shown in Figure 2 of Bryant, the metal ferrule 7 does 21 not extend over the corrugated hose 5 because the end of the metal ferrule 7 22 terminates prior to the corrugated hose 5. (See Fig. 2). Moreover, the 23 Examiner has not adequately explained how the metal ferrule 7 presses the 24 corrugated hose 5 into the serrations 2. Therefore, Bryant does not disclose 25 Appeal 2013-010705 Reexamination Control 90/009,986 Patent No. 7,849,884 B2 5 that the metal ferrule 7 causes the corrugated hose 5 to press into the 1 serrations 2 (that is, that the inner hose is pressed into grooves) by means of 2 a pressure sleeve because the Examiner has not explained how the metal 3 ferrule 7 affects an engagement between the corrugated hose 5 and the 4 serrations 2. 5 The Examiner relies on Li for Li’s description of the barb 15 and the 6 depressions 18. (See Ans. 4-5). This description fails to remedy the defects 7 in Bryant. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5-7 under 8 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bryant and Li. 9 Bauman describes a corrugated tube section 60 defined by convolutes 10 61 and valley portions 62. (Bauman, col. 6, ll. 5-9 and fig. 7). Bauman 11 teaches that the valley portions 62 may be employed with various widths 12 measured along the tubing longitudinal axis. (Id. col. 6, ll. 14-37). The 13 Examiner relies on Bauman for Bauman’s description of “various distances 14 and widths in regard to corrugated hoses.” (Ans. 5). This description fails 15 to remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Bryant and Li. We 16 do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-4 under § 103(a) as being 17 unpatentable over Bryant, Li, and Bauman. 18 19 DECISION 20 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7. 21 Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination 22 proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c) (2012). See 37 C.F.R. 23 § 41.50(f) (2012). 24 25 Appeal 2013-010705 Reexamination Control 90/009,986 Patent No. 7,849,884 B2 6 REVERSED 1 2 3 4 alw 5 6 7 Patent Owner: 8 9 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. 10 1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD 11 ROSLYN, NY 11576 12 13 Third Party Requester: 14 15 VOLPE & KOENIG, P.C. 16 UNITED PLAZA 17 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET 18 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4009 19