Ex Parte 8007010 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2015

95002139 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2015)

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.
95/002,139 09/05/2012 8007010 12295.0016USR3 2787
23552 7590 03/27/2015
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2015 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
____________

CEJN AB,
Requester and Respondent,

v.

Westerndorf Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

2
Patent Owner Westerndorf Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b) from the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1-24 on various grounds.
1
Requester CEJN AB
(“Requester”) urges that the Examiner’s decision must be affirmed.
2
We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
United States Patent 8,007,010 B2 (hereinafter the “’010 Patent”) is
the subject of the current inter partes reexamination. (Request for Inter
Partes Reexamination filed September 5, 2012 “Request”.) The ’010 Patent
issued from Application No. 12/658,574, which is said to be a divisional of
Application No. 11/397,863 issued as United States Patent 7,717,471
(hereinafter the “’471 Patent”), which in turn is said to be a divisional of
Application No. 10/773,566 issued as United States Patent 7,021,668 B2
(hereinafter the “’668 Patent”). The ’471 Patent is the subject of inter partes
Reexamination Control Number 95/001,446, in which the Board previously
issued a Decision on Appeal affirming the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1-29. (Decision mailed May 16, 2014, Appeal No. 2013-007688 “’471
Decision”). The ’668 Patent was the subject of inter partes Reexamination

1
See Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief filed December 2, 2013, hereinafter
“App. Br.,” 8-10, Patent Owner’s Rebuttal Brief filed April 28, 2014,
hereinafter “Reb. Br.”; Examiner’s Answer mailed March 26, 2014,
hereinafter “Ans.”; Right of Appeal Notice mailed July 26, 2013, hereinafter
“RAN.”
2
See Requester’s Respondent Brief filed December 20, 2013, hereinafter
“Resp. Br.”
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

3
Control Number 95/000,371, in which the Board previously issued a
Decision on Appeal affirming the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, and
6-18. (Decision mailed December 17, 2010, Appeal No. 2010-011453). An
Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate issued for the ’668 Patent on April
12, 2012 cancelling claims 1-16.
The ’010 Patent states that “[t]he invention relates to a hydraulic line
attachment device and a method for using a hydraulic line attachment
device.” (Col. 1, ll. 17-24.)
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, reads as
follows:
1. A hydraulic line attachment device comprising:
(a) a first assembly comprising a first frame, a plurality
of first hydraulic line couplers, and a first coupling member;
(b) a second assembly comprising a second frame, a
plurality of second hydraulic line couplers, and a second
coupling member;
(c) the plurality of first hydraulic line couplers and the
plurality of second hydraulic line couplers are constructed so
that they are closed to flow of hydraulic fluid therethrough
when disengaged, and open to flow of hydraulic fluid
therethrough when engaged;
(d) at least one of the first coupling member and the
second coupling member comprises a shaft having a pin, the
shaft being constructed to engage the other of the first coupling
member and the second coupling member, and wherein the
other of the first coupling member and the second coupling
member comprises a cam comprising a cylinder and a spiral
track for engaging the pin, wherein the cam engages the shaft
and the pin so that as a result of rotation between the shaft and
the cam when the pin is engaged in the spiral track, the plurality
of first hydraulic line couplers and the plurality of second
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

4
hydraulic line couplers are engaged or are disengaged
depending on the direction of rotation; and
(e) a handle coupled to one of the first coupling member
or the second coupling member so that moving the handle
causes engagement and disengagement of the plurality of first
hydraulic line couplers and the plurality of second hydraulic
line couplers when the pin is engaged in the spiral track, and
wherein the handle is constructed to rotate in a plane
perpendicular to an axis of movement of the plurality of first
hydraulic line couplers and the plurality of second hydraulic
line couplers when moving into or out of engagement, and
wherein the plane crosses the axis.
(App. Br. 35, Claims App’x.)

The Examiner relied on the following as evidence of unpatentability
(RAN 3-23):
Truchet 4,611,831 Sept. 16, 1986
Arosio 5,316,347 May 31, 1994
Gray et al. (“Gray”) 5,417,459 May 23, 1995
Mahaney 5,507,530 Apr. 16, 1996
Mailleux 5,984,371 Nov. 16, 1999
Hyzin 5,800,197 Sept. 1, 1998
Smith, III (“Smith ’742”) 6,173,742 B1 Jan. 16, 2001
Smith, III (“Smith ’250”) 6,471,250 B2 Oct. 29, 2002
Schutz et al. (“Schutz”) US 2004/0018928 A1 Jan. 29, 2004

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Smith ’250 alone
3
(Ground A; RAN 3; Request 36-43);

3
Patent Owner contends that the rejection of the claims based on Smith ’250
is incomplete because the RAN fails to identify with particularity the source
of the incorporated pages. (App. Br. 13.) This is not an appealable issue,
but should have been challenged by way of a timely filed petition. Patent
Owner’s objection in this regard is not clear as the rejection has not changed
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

5
II. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Smith ’250 in view of Smith ’742 or Schutz (Grounds B.1,
B.3; RAN 3-4);
III. Claims 1, 3, 7-11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Smith ’250 in view of Hyzin (Ground B.2; RAN 4);
IV. Claims 2, 6, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Smith ’250 alone, or Smith ’250 in view of Smith ’742, Hyzin, or Schutz,
further in view of Arosio or Mailleux (Grounds C.1.1, C.1.2, C.1.3, C.1.4,
C.3.1, C.3.2, C.3.3, C.3.4; RAN 4-6, 9-11);
V. Claims 2, 5, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Smith ’250 alone, or Smith ’250 in view of Smith ’742, Hyzin, or
Schutz, further in view of Mahaney (Grounds C.2.1, C.2.2,C.2.3, C.2.4;
RAN 6-9);
VI. Claims 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Smith ’250 in view of Hyzin (Ground 2; RAN 21-22);
VII. Claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Smith ’250 in view of Schutz (Ground 3; RAN 22);
VIII. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Smith
’250 in view of Smith ’742 or Hyzin, and further in view of Smith ’742 or
Gray (Ground 4; RAN 22-23);
IX. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Grounds
A and B (I and II above) further in view of Smith ’250 or Gray (Ground 5;
RAN 23);

since the first office action issued October 26, 2012. Indeed, Patent Owner
appears to understand that the pages incorporated are from the Request for
Reexamination dated September 5, 2012. (App. Br. 13.)
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

6
X. Claims 1, 4, and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Truchet in view of Smith ’742 (Ground F.1; RAN 11; Request 81-88);
XI. Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Truchet in view of Gray (Ground F.2; RAN 11-12; Request
81-88);
XII. Claims 1-4 and 6-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Truchet in view of Smith ’742, Hyzin, or Schutz, and Arosio (Grounds
G.1.1, G.1.2, G.1.3; RAN 12-14);
XIII. Claims 1-5 and 7-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Truchet alone or in view of Smith ’742, Hyzin, or Schutz, and Mahaney
(Grounds G.2.1, G.2.2, G.2.3, G.2.4 ;RAN 14-17);
XIV. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Truchet alone or in view of Smith ’742, Hyzin, or Schutz, and
Mailleux (Grounds G.3.1, G.3.2, G.3.3, G.3.4; RAN 18-21); and
XV. Claims 15, 16, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Rejections X, XI, and XII with further findings from Truchet
(Ground 1; RAN 21).

Level of Skill in the Art
As an initial matter, the parties dispute the level of ordinary skill in
the art. The Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Darwin Olson dated
July 25, 2011 (“the Olson Declaration”) for the level of ordinary skill in the
art, namely “someone having a four year engineering degree and four or five
years of working experience designing hydraulic cylinder powering
circuits.” (App. Br. 11-12; Olson Decl. para. 3.) Patent Owner contends
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

7
that the Examiner has not applied a correct or consistent level of ordinary
skill in the art. (App. Br. 11-13.) The Examiner’s position is that the level
of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Olson Declaration is unreasonably
high. (RAN 26.) Requester contends that determining exactly the amount
of education or experience is in this case not relevant to the obviousness
analysis because the choices required in combining the prior art would have
been obvious to both persons of a low skill level and a high skill level.
(Resp. Br. 3.)
In KSR, the Court reaffirmed the elements of an obviousness analysis
set out in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966),
namely: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and
(3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
In this case, neither the Requester nor the Examiner provides
sufficient evidentiary support for the position that the level of ordinary skill
should be lower than the level specified in the Olson Declaration. Thus, we
accept the level of ordinary skill in the art is as set forth in the Olson
Declaration.

Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

8
Rejections based on Smith ’250
Rejections II and III. Smith ’250 in view of Smith ’742, Hyzin, or
Schutz
With respect to limitation (d) and (e) of claim 1, the Examiner stated
that Smith ’742, Hyzin, and Schutz each were cited to show a more complete
cylinder/bayonet screw structure, and that it would have been obvious to
provide such structures “in order to permit for a more stable track that can
have greater movement.” (RAN 3, 4.)
Patent Owner contends that modifying Smith ’250 with any of the
structures shown by Smith ’742, Hyzin, and Schutz would render Smith
’250 unsuitable for its intended purpose of providing a simple and reliable
mechanism in a subsea environment by removing the cam followers from
the arm or lower member 36. (App. Br. 21-22.)
We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Smith ’250 with Smith
’742, Hyzin, and Schutz. Smith ’250 discloses:
Attempts have been made to simultaneously bring the junction
plates together, including threaded devices. However, threaded
connections have the disadvantages of marine growth buildup
in the threads and galling of the threads.
(Col. 2, ll. 21-25.)

Neither the Examiner nor the Requester appears to dispute that Smith
’742, Hyzin, and Schutz each describe threaded connections in conjunction
with hydraulic couplers that would meet the claim limitations. (Smith ’742,
col. 5, ll. 25-32, Fig. 7; Hyzin, col. 2, ll. 40-60, Fig. 1; Schutz, para. [0026].)
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

9
However, although Smith ’250 expressly describes the disadvantages
of threaded connections as disclosed in Smith ’742, Hyzin, and Schutz, we
are not convinced that employing the bayonet screw attachment mechanisms
of Smith ’742, Hyzin, and Schutz to the device of Smith ’250 would be
contrary to the purpose of providing “a simple and reliable mechanism” for
hydraulic coupling in a subsea environment in all situations. The issues with
the operation of threaded connections disclosed in Smith ’250 relate to
marine growth buildup and galling of the threads, both of which would occur
over a period of time. There is insufficient evidence that threaded
connections used in hydraulic subsea couplings would be inconsistent with
the purpose disclosed Smith ’250 for shorter periods of time. Moreover,
Smith ’250 teaches that threaded connections had been used for undersea
purposes, despite such shortcomings (at col. 2, ll. 21-25). Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
Also, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Smith
’742 teaches away from multiple male and female hydraulic line couplers by
describing individual male and female members. (App. Br. 22.) Patent
Owner does not direct us to sufficient evidence that Smith ’742, in
describing individual male and female members, would be incompatible or
ineffective for coupling plates with multiple male and female members.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that one of one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been limited to modifying Smith ’250 in view of Smith ’742 in
the manner set forth by Patent Owner. (App. Br. 22.)
In addition, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to generate the leverage
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

10
or force required to bring multiple male and female coupling members
together using the design of Smith ‘742. (App. Br. 22.) Patent Owner does
not direct us to sufficient support in Smith ’250 that the cam followers are
necessary for such leverage.
Similarly, Patent Owner argues that Hyzin and Schutz fail to disclose
a design that where the parts being attached are simultaneously being pushed
apart, relying on the Olson Declaration for additional support. (App. Br. 22-
23.) We note that the cited portion of the Olson Declaration is directed to
the combination of Truchet with Hyzin and Schutz. (Olson Decl. para. 6.)
To the extent that such rationale applies in the combination of Smith ’250
with Hyzin and Schutz, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
While Hyzin or Schutz may be silent as to the capability of overcoming the
force associated with parts being pushed apart, that silence does not translate
to an affirmative teaching that the arrangements of Hyzin or Schutz would
not be capable of overcoming such a force.
Rejections IV and V
Patent Owner appears only to present arguments regarding dependent
claims 2, 6, and 12 which involve attachment to a motor vehicle, arguing
that there is no reason provided to explain how the design disclosed in Smith
’250 would be safe when used in as part of a front end loader from a tractor.
(App. Br. 23.) Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why the design in
Smith ’250 would raise such a concern, e.g., why the design would endanger
catching a shirt sleeve or finger in a farm environment. (Reb. Br. 3.)
Indeed, as pointed out by both the Examiner and Requester, the design of
Smith ’250 operates in an environment that also implicates safety issues.
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

11
(RAN 26; Resp. Br. 5.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent
Owner’s argument.

Rejections VI-VII
Patent Owner presents similar arguments regarding the substitution of
the coupling mechanism of Hyzin or Schutz for the coupling mechanism of
Smith ’250 as discussed above with respect to Rejection II and III. (App.
Br. 31-32.) As such, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments for
the reasons expressed above.

Rejections VIII and IX
4

Claims 19 and 24 both recite that the cylinder comprises at least two
spiral tracks wherein each spiral track travels at least 180 degrees. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to extend the spiral
track of Smith ’742 to 180 degrees in view of Gray in order to make a more
secure connection because a track that requires greater rotation would reduce
the chance of inadvertent uncoupling (RAN 22-23.)
Patent Owner contends that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained why a longer track reduces uncoupling in a subsea environment

4
Patent Owner contends that with respect to Rejection IX, the Examiner
appears to be relying on Smith ’250 as both a primary reference and a
secondary reference, and as a result it is unclear how the Examiner is
rejecting the claims. (App. Br. 32.) The Examiner expressly refers to Smith
’742 in the body of the rejection. (RAN 23.) Thus, there appears to be a
typographical error in the statement of the rejection. We view this error as
harmless, as it is clear in the body of the rejection that the Examiner relies
on Smith ’742 as a secondary reference.
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

12
compared with a shorter track, and that the rollers or bearings 31 and 33
would easily follow a track regardless of whether the track was longer.
(App. Br. 32.) Patent Owner argues also that Smith ’250 teaches away from
the threaded connections of Smith ’742 and Gray due to the disadvantages of
marine growth buildup in the threads and galling of the threads. (App. Br.
32-33.)
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As further
explained by the Examiner, extending the track would make for a stronger
connection by virtue of the track being engaged for a longer time, thus
requiring more effort to undo. (RAN 26.) Also, we are not persuaded that
Smith ’250 teaches away from combining Smith ’742 and Gray. As
explained above, while Smith ’250 notes certain disadvantages of the
systems containing threaded connections, such disadvantages may not be of
concern in all applications.

Rejection I - Smith ’250 alone
The Examiner adopts the findings regarding Smith ’250 and the
rationale provided by Requester in the Request in order to conclude that the
claims would have been obvious over Smith ’250 alone. (RAN 3, citing
Request, pages 36-43.) In particular, the Request identifies arm or lower
member 36 of Smith ’250 as the pin in the second coupling member recited
in the claims. (Request 37.)
Patent Owner contends, inter alia, that Smith ’250 does not disclose a
pin as recited in the claims. In this regard, Patent Owner argues that the arm
or lower member 36 disclosed in Smith ’250 does not engage the sloped cam
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

13
surface 34, which is accomplished by cam followers 31 and 33. (App. Br.
18.) Thus, Patent Owner contends that the arm or lower member 36 does
not meet the claim, because claims 1 and 7 both require that the pin engages
the spiral track. (App. Br. 19.) Patent Owner argues that Requester has not
explained how, in the event that the arm or lower member 36 with the cam
followers 31 and 33 of Smith ’250 is replaced with a pin, the resulting
modification would achieve the objectives stated in Smith ’250 of a simple
and reliable mechanism for use in subsea environments. (App. Br. 19.)
Further, Patent Owner contends that Smith ’250 uses the term
“guidepin” to refer to a different part (40), such that arm 36 is not a pin.
(App. Br. 19.) In addition, in view of the cam followers 31 and 33, which
minimize or reduce friction, Patent Owner argues that arm 36 does not
perform the same function in the same manner as a pin. (App. Br. 19.)
Smith ’250 discloses a junction plate assembly to engage or disengage
hydraulic couplings in undersea drilling and production operations. (’250
Patent, col. 1, ll. 8-14.)
Smith ’250 discloses a first and second manifold plate, where the
second manifold plate:
includes sleeve 17 at its center, and the central shaft extends
through the sleeve. A pair of flanges 16 on the central shaft
blocks axial movement of the central shaft relative to the
second manifold plate. One end of the central shaft includes an
arm or lower member 36 perpendicular to the axis of the central
shaft. The arm or lower member includes at least one cam
follower attached thereto. In a preferred embodiment, the cam
followers are rollers or bearings 31, 33, although other cam
followers may be used to move on the sloped cam surface and
minimize or reduce friction between the cam followers and
sloped cam surface 32.
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

14
(Col. 3, l. 62 – col. 4, l. 6.)

We agree with Patent Owner that Smith ’250 fails to disclose the
“pin” recited in the claims. The Examiner asserts that Smith ’250 discloses
a “pin” that “meets a broad but reasonable definition of pin especially as it
performs the same function in the same manner as that of the instant patent.”
(RAN 26.) Neither the Examiner nor the Requester provides sufficient
explanation to support this interpretation. Specifically, claim 1 of the ’010
Patent requires that the pin engage the spiral track of the cam. In Smith
’250, the arm or lower member 36 includes cam followers that engage the
cam surface. (Col. 2, ll. 21-25; Fig. 5.) Smith describes the cam followers
as minimizing or reducing friction, providing examples of rollers or
bearings. Accordingly, it is clear that Smith ’250 requires the cam follower
have sufficient structure to performing the function of minimizing or
reducing friction.
The ’010 Patent describes the pin as “roll pin,” which may be
“cylindrical rods” of one or two piece construction. (Col. 4, ll. 35-51.) This
description is consistent with the definition of pin, which is “a short
cylindrical rod or tube, as a wrist pin or crankpin, joining two parts so as to
permit them to move in one plane relative to each other.”
5
The ’010 Patent
describes further the function of the pin as entering the spiral track, and as it
is rotated, it is slid within the spiral track pulling the second assembly
toward the first assembly in a transverse direction. (Col. 6, l. 67 – col. 7, l.
16.) There is no indication from either the ’010 Patent or the definition of

5
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pin
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

15
pin, that a pin would be understood to minimize or reduce friction. Thus,
while Smith ’250 describes the cam followers as part of the arm or lower
member 36, we have not been directed to sufficient evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered the arm or lower member 36
of Smith ’250 to be a pin such that arm or lower member 36 would perform
the same function in the same manner as pin as urged by the Examiner.
(RAN 26.)
Moreover, Smith ’250 uses the term “guidepin” to describe element
40. (Col. 3, ll. 46-48.) Thus, the fact that Smith ’250 used the term “arm or
lower member” rather than “pin” to describe element 36, is further evidence
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered the arm or
lower member 36 to be a pin. As a result, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection
Summary
In sum, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of the claims based on
Smith ’250 in view of Smith ’742, Hyzin, or Schutz. (Rejections II, III
(Grounds B.1, B.2, B.3), Rejections IV and V (Grounds C.1.2, C.1.3, C.1.4,
C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.3.2, C.3.3, C.3.4), and Rejection VI-IX except as
outlined below (Grounds 2-5.) However, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejections based on Smith ’250 alone (Rejection I (Ground A), Rejections IV
and V (Grounds C.1.1, C.2.1, C.3.1.), and the portion of Rejection IX
(Ground 1) relying on Rejection I (Ground A).

Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

16
Rejections Based on Truchet
In the prior art rejections, the Examiner’s position is that it would
have been obvious to modify Truchet by replacing male elements 2 and
female bores 6b with check-valve hydraulic couplers from the secondary
references to meet claim limitation of “hydraulic line coupler.” (RAN 11-
21; see Truchet col. 2, ll. 10-24; Fig. 1.)
Initially, we note that Patent Owner argues the definition of hydraulic
couplers. (App. Br. 24.) We addressed this argument previously in the
reexamination of the ’471 Patent interpreting hydraulic line couplers to
mean “a hydraulic line attachment device, which may or may not include
check valves.” (’471 Decision, 6-10.) We will not repeat that discussion
here, but incorporate it herein for its relevance.
Patent Owner contends that Truchet discloses a connection device for
fluid circuits and that one of ordinary skill in the art would drain the coolant
from the mold prior to changing the mold. (App. Br. 24.) Patent Owner
contends that if Truchet were modified as suggested with the hydraulic line
couplers dis closed in Gray, Mahaney, Mailleux or Arosio, the resulting
device would not be economical and simple to use, would change the
principle of operation disclosed in Truchet, and would result in an
unsatisfactory device. (App. Br. 24-25.) Patent Owner argues further that
the resulting device may be inoperable because water is a non-compressible
fluid, and there would be no place for the water to go when depressing the
check valve of the hydraulic line couplers. (App. Br. 26.) Patent Owner
argues also that Truchet does not describe a device that engages a plurality
of male and female hydraulic line couplers, because the male and female
Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

17
elements of Truchet’s device are already connected. (App. Br. 26-28.)
Additionally, Patent Owner, relying on the Declaration of Darwin Olson
dated July 25, 2011, contends that Truchet discloses heat exchange
circulating systems, which are different than hydraulic systems and which
operate at pressures that are much lower than hydraulic systems, such that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of
secondary references with Truchet. (App. Br. 28-30, 31-32.) Patent Owner
argues that the connection device of Truchet would not provide sufficient
axial movement to create a fluid connection between hydraulic couplers.
(App. Br. 29-31.) Patent Owner argues that Truchet, Hyzin, and Schutz fail
to describe a device sufficient to overcome the repulsive force of the
components as they are being engaged. (App. Br. 30-31.)
In the ’471 Decision, we addressed similar arguments by the Patent
Owner with respect to the combinations of Truchet, Mahaney, Mailleux, and
Arosio, finding Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive. (’471 Decision 11-
16, see also Decision on Request for Rehearing in the ’471 Patent.) In this
regard, we observe that the Olson Declaration presented in the current
proceeding is the same Olson Declaration presented in the ’471 proceeding.
Thus, we find it unnecessary to repeat that discussion here, but incorporate it
herein. Patent Owner did not present any arguments specific to Smith ’742.
Accordingly, we affirm all of the Examiner’s rejections of the claims based
on Truchet (Rejection X-XV).

Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

18
DECISION
We affirm Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 as set forth in this
Decision.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2014-007487
Reexamination Control 95/002,139
Patent 8,007,010 B2

19

PATENT OWNER:

MERCHANT & GOULD PC
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

IPQ IP SPECIALISTS AB
DOCKETING BOX 42
HAGFORS 68321
SE

ack