Ex Parte Baker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2014

11219040 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte KENNETH R. BAKER1
and Abdlmonem H. Beitelmal
________________

Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before MARK NAGUMO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Kenneth R. Baker and Abdlmonem H. Beitelmal (“HPDC”) timely
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection2 of claims 1-5,
7-10, 22-24, and 26-28.3 We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is listed as Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, LP (“HPDC”). (Appeal Brief, filed 4 April 2008 (“Br.”), 2.)
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
2
OPINION
A. Introduction4
The claimed invention relates to a system for detecting leaks from
“port connections” in a coolant system for electrical components. In
embodiments, the leak detector comprises jackets having electrical
properties that change when contacted by the coolant fluid. The jackets are
disposed coaxially around the port connections, and are connected to a
control logic that can identify the location of the jacket that detects a coolant
leak.
Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
A leak detection system for a system that includes fluid
communication tubes configured to transport a fluid to and
from one or more heat exchangers positioned adjacent one or
more electrical components within the system, where the
fluid communication tubes are connected to one or more
connection ports, the leak detection system comprising:
a leak detection jacket disposed co-axially around the one
or more connection ports,
the leak detection jacket being configured with
electrical properties that are changed by contact with
fluid; and
a control logic
connected to selected leak detection jackets,

2 Office action mailed 13 September 2007 (“Final Rejection,” cited as
“FR”).
3 Remaining copending claims 11-21 and 25 have been withdrawn from
consideration (FR 1, § 4a; Br. 4) and are not before us.
4 Application 11/219,040, Leak detection systems and methods,
filed 2 September 2005. We refer to the 040 Specification and cite it as
“Spec.”
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
3
the control logic being configured to detect a fluid leak
at one or more connection ports
by detecting a change in the electrical properties of
a selected leak detection jacket,
wherein the control logic also being configured to
identify a location of the fluid leak based on
identifying which of the leak detection jackets
exhibits the change in its electrical properties.
(Claims App., Br. 19; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:5
A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 22, 24, and 26-28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) in view of Bhatti.6
A1. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
of Bhatti.
A2. Claims 2 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Bhatti and either Roberts7
or Charboneau.8
A3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Bhatti and Makel.9
A4. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Bhatti and Corrado.10

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 12 October 2011 (“Ans.”).
6 Mohinder Singh Bhatti et al., Leak detection apparatus for a liquid
circulation cooling system, U.S. Patent 6,826,948 B1 (7 December 2004).
7 Michael Lee Roberts, U.S. Patent 6,370,945 B2 (2002).
8 Kenneth R. Charboneau, U.S. Patent 5,551,484 (1996).
9 Darby B. Makel et al., U.S. Patent 5,586,050 (1996).
10 Joseph P. Corrado et al., U.S. Patent 7,011,143 B2 (14 March 2006).
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
4
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Initially, we find that HPDC limits its substantive arguments to the
failure, in its view, of Bhatti to anticipate various limitations of the
independent claims, which we address infra. HPDC does not offer distinct
arguments for the patentability of claims rejected as obvious. (Br. 17, last
para.) The claims stand or fall with independent claims 1 or 22.
The dispositive issues, as recognized by the Examiner (FR 8, ll. 8-12),
relate to the scope of the claims. Most fundamentally, does claim 1
encompass, as the Examiner holds (implicitly at FR 2-3, expressly at FR 8,
ll. 8-12), a leak detection system consisting of a single detector jacket at a
single port connected to a control logic?11 On the present record, we are not
persuaded of harmful error in the Examiner’s claim construction or in the
Examiner’s analysis of the applied prior art under that construction. Thus,
we affirm.
We begin by construing the limitations of claim 1.
It is well-established that during examination,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
written description contained in the applicant’s specification.

11 The Examiner finds that Bhatti would not anticipate claims to a leak
detection system comprising a single circuit capable of detecting leaks at
different locations. (FR 8, ll. 13-15).
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
5
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The 040 Specification is careful to instruct that “[t]he examples are
not intended to be limiting. Both singular and plural forms of terms may be
within the definitions.” (Spec. 4, ll. 1-3.) Several definitions and examples
are provided, of which the following are most pertinent to this Opinion.
The Specification teaches that “‘[l]ogic,’ as used herein, includes but
is not limited to hardware, firmware, software and/or combinations of each
to perform a function(s) or an action(s).” (Id. at 5, ll. 6-9.)
The term “control logic” is not expressly defined, but the
Specification instructs that in some embodiments, “[a] control logic can be
configured to sense or otherwise measure the electrical properties of each
leak detection jacket to determine whether a leak has occurred.” (Id. at 2,
last line, to 3, l. 2.) The control logic “can be configured to respond in a
variety of ways” (id. at l. 3), including generating an “alert signal”
(id. at l. 4). The Specification also describes an embodiment of control logic
that can include sensing logic “that may comprise one or more sensing
circuits.” (Id. at 11, ll. 5-7, describing Fig. 2 (not reproduced here).) Each
sensing circuit “can be configured to sense the electrical properties of a
selected leak detection jacket.” (Id. at ll. 8-9.) “Of course,” the
Specification instructs, “one circuit can be connected to function with
multiple jackets.” (Id. at ll. 11-12.)
Finally, the Specification concludes with a discussion of the way
certain conjunctions are to be understood in the disclosure and in the claims.
The Specification states that, “to the extent that the term ‘or’ is employed in
the detailed description or claims (e.g., A or B) it is intended to mean
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
6
‘A or B or both’”. (Id. at 20, ll. 7-9.) Moreover, the Specification states that
“[w]hen the applicants intend to indicate ‘at least one of A, at least one of B,
and at least one of C’, then the phrasing ‘at least one of A, at least one of B,
and at least one of C’ will be employed.” (Id. at 20, ll. 17-20.)
Based on the definitions, examples, and the particular rules of
construction enunciated by HPDC, we understand HPDC to be claiming
broadly, but also precisely. With this guidance in mind, we now consider
claim 1 in detail, beginning with the repeated phrase, “one or more.” In both
plain English, and according to HPDC’s express rule of construction cited
supra, “one or more A” reads on a single A.
Our reviewing court has instructed that, to determine “what effect
should be accorded to words contained in a preamble, review of a patent in
its entirety should be made to determine whether the inventors intended such
language to represent an additional structural limitation or mere introductory
language.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (internal
quotation and citation omitted). According to the preamble of claim 1, the
leak detector must be suitable for a system that includes “one or more”—i.e.,
that includes a single heat exchanger, a single electrical components, and a
single connection port, to which fluid communication tubes12 are connected.
There may, of course, be more than one heat exchanger, electrical
component, or connection port in the system to which the claimed leak
detector is applied, but we focus on the minimum required by claim 1. We
conclude that the preamble is entitled to patentable weight as expressing a

12 We need not decide whether the recitation of the grammatical plural
“tubes” excludes a system in which heat-transferring fluid is both introduced
to and removed from a region via a single connection port.
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
7
capability of the claimed leak detection system that is not inconsistent with
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the body of the claim, to which we
now turn.
The leak detection system itself must contain at least one leak
detection jacket. Moreover, that leak detection jacket must be disposed co-
axially around “the one or more connection ports,”13 which includes a single
connection port. Furthermore, the electrical properties of the leak detection
jacket must change upon contact with the fluid carried in the fluid
communication tubes.
Finally, the leak detection system must comprise control logic that is
“connected to selected leak detection jackets.” The control logic is also
“configured to detect a fluid leak at one or more connection ports by
detecting a change in the electrical properties of a selected leak detection
jacket.” Moreover, the control logic must be “configured to identify a
location of the fluid leak based on identifying which of the leak detection
jackets exhibits the change in its electrical properties.”

13 In the present posture of the case, we need not decide whether claim 1
requires that a single leak detection jacket be disposed coaxially around all
of the connection ports, if there are more than one connection ports in the
system. (See Claim 1 (“a leak detection jacket disposed co-axially around
the one or more connection ports” (emphasis added)).) That issue has not
been raised by HPDC or by the Examiner in the discussion of the prior art
rejections, which are the only maintained rejections of record. Of course,
claim 1 does not exclude multiple leak detection jackets around single or
multiple connection ports. HPDC and the Examiner may wish to consider
this issue in the event of further prosecution. We neither make nor insinuate
any findings or holdings in this regard.
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
8
Initially, we hold that the plain language of the recitation, “a control
logic connected to selected leak detection jackets” does not require that the
control logic select the leak detection jackets to which it is connected.
Rather, a “user”—a specially defined term that includes a person operating
the system14—can select the leak detection jackets to be monitored.
Moreover, the control logic is configured to detect a fluid leak at “one or
more”—thus including a single—port. It follows that the term “selected
leak detection jackets” can read on a single leak detection jacket that has
been selected by the user for monitoring leakage at a single connection port.
That user will therefore know which connection port is connected to the
control logic.
Claim 1 also requires that the control logic be configured to identify
the location of the fluid leak “based on identifying which of the leak
detection jackets exhibits the change in its electrical properties.” Notably,
however, claim 1 does not require that the control logic contain information
about the physical locus of the leak, or even that the control memory contain
information about the identity of a leak detection jacket, although these
possibilities are not excluded by the claim.15 Claim 1 merely requires that
the control logic identify which leak detection jacket has exhibited a change
in its electrical properties. It follows that, because a user may select which
jackets—including a single jacket—are to be monitored, an alert signal

14 The Specification defines the term “user” as including but “not limited to
one or more persons, software, computers or other devices, or combinations
of these.” (Spec. 7, ll. 7-8.)
15 For example, the 040 Specification describes an embodiment of a control
logic configured to identify a location of the fluid leak solely by the identity
of the jacket (135 or 140). (Spec. 10 [0034], ll. 1-7.)
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
9
issued by the control logic will inform that user that the selected jacket has
exhibited a change in electrical characteristics of the leak. In so doing, the
control logic will identify which jacket—i.e., the selected jacket—has
detected a leak. Claim 1 does not require more, and we will not read
limitations from preferred embodiments into the claims. In re Am. Acad.
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
HPDC argues first that Bhatti does not teach a detector that has a
function to identify a location of a leak (Br. 12-13; the same argument is
raised for independent claim 26, (id. at 15)), and that assisting the operator
to identify the leak does not satisfy the requirements of the claim. These
arguments are not persuasive because HPDC is attributing limitations to the
claimed subject matter that are not present, as discussed in the preceding
paragraph.
HPDC argues further that Bhatti does not disclose connection ports,
and therefore does not disclose leak detection jackets disposed coaxially
around one or more connection ports. (Br. 14-15.) In particular, HPDC
urges that “aligning two pipes end-to-end as a pipe joint is not a connection
port.” (Id. at 14, ll. 8-9.) The Specification does not define expressly the
term “connection port,” but connection ports 115 and 125 (to which HPDC
directs our attention (Br. 6, ll. 7-11)) are described as “plumbing junctions
where connections occur with the fluid communication tubes.” (Spec. 8,
ll. 12-13.) The pipe joints in Bhatti, Fig. 1 (not reproduced here), identified
by the Examiner at which inlet 16a of device 16, etc., is coupled to pipe 30,
etc., leading from the outlet of an adjacent device in the cooling loop, are
indisputably “plumbing junctions” as described by the 040 Specification. In
the absence of a limiting express definition of the term “connection port,”
App
App
we p
limit

follo
(Cla

circu
and d
analy
the d
deter
in H
eal 2012-0
lication 11
erceive no
ation or th
Claim 22
wing limit
measu
determ
chang
ims App.,
HPDC u
it shown i
{Bhatti Fi
escribed b
zed by HP
etector. A
mine a lea
PDC’s vie
03613
/219,040
harmful e
e factual f
is drawn
ations:
ring the el
ining whe
e in the ele
Br. 21; ind
rges that m
n Bhatti F
g. 6 shows
y Bhatti a
DC at Br
s a conseq
k based on
w, there is
rror in the
inding tha
to a metho
ectrical pr
ther fluid
ctrical pro
entation a
ethod cla
ig. 6, repro
a circuit t
dete
t column 4
. 12-13), d
uence, ac
the meas
no anticip
10
Examiner
t this limit
d of leak
operty of t
has contac
perty whi
dded.)
im 22 is no
duced bel
hat detects
ctor 140}
, lines 39
oes not me
cording to
ured prope
ation.
’s interpre
ation is me
detection,
he jacket;
ted the jac
ch indicate
t met bec
ow,
a decreas

-58 (quote
asure an e
HPDC, th
rty.” (Br
tation of t
t.
and includ
and
ket based
s a fluid l
ause the d
e in resista
d in full an
lectrical p
e circuit “
. 16, ll. 18-
his
es the
on a
eak.
etection
nce of
d
roperty of
does not
19.) Thus

,
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
11
These arguments are not persuasive. The 040 Specification does not
define the term “measurement.” The Specification does teach that “[i]f the
measured value falls outside the acceptable range, the presence of a fluid
leak is assumed and an alert signal can be generated.” (Spec. 10, ll. 4-6.)
The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure does not
exclude the measurement of the electrical properties of detector 140
provided by the circuit shown in Fig. 6. As Bhatti explains in the quoted
paragraph, under normal (non-leak) conditions, the resistance of
detector 140 is relatively high, so the pull-down resistor 152 biases the
Darlington pair 146 non-conductive. (Bhatti col. 5, ll. 51-53.) Upon leakage
of coolant, “the resistance of detector 140 [wicking material impregnated
with a salt such as sodium chloride (id. at col. 3, ll. 19-26)] drops
precipitously, biasing the Darlington pair 146 conductive to activate the
alarm.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 54-56.) We have no difficulty finding that the
ordinary instrument designer would have recognized that the choice of the
magnitudes of resistors 152 and 154, together with the dry resistance of the
detector 140, would set the bias point. This, in turn, would effectively set
the amount of decrease in the resistance of detector 140 required to bias the
Darlington pair conductive. That choice provides a simple but effective
threshold resistivity measurement of the detector as sufficiently resistive that
a leak is not detected, or sufficiently conductive that a leak is detected.
Thus, the switch of the Darlington pair from non-conductive to conductive
mode is based on a change in the conductive properties of the detector.
Claim 20 requires no more. HPDC raises essentially the same argument for
claim 24. (Br. 17.)
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
12
The difficulty with HPDC’s position arises from the breadth of the
limitations recited in the claim, which admit the possibility that the leak
detection system comprises only one connection port and only one leak
detection jacket; and that it can be capable of servicing a system that
contains only one heat exchanger positioned adjacent only one heat
exchanger, wherein fluid is transported through tubes connected to only one
connection port. The two recitations of “selected leak detection jackets” are
arguably ambiguous, as it is slightly strained to read the plural as including
the singular. But, given the indication in the specification that “both the
singular and the plural forms may be within the definitions” (Spec. 4,
ll. 3-4), the slight ambiguity is outweighed by the four recitations of “one or
more,” which are not at all ambiguous.
If HPDC had meant to limit its claims to leak detection systems for
systems having at least two connection ports, it would have used a
formulation such as “where the fluid communication tubes are connected to
at least two connection ports,” or perhaps “. . . to more than one connection
port.” Moreover, HPDC would have drafted claims with a limitation such as
“at least two leak detection jackets disposed co-axially around at least two
connection ports.” HPDC would have also drafted a limitation requiring that
the control logic comprise “at least two sensing circuits, each sensing circuit
being connected to at least one of said leak detection jackets.”16 As noted
supra, the Examiner finds that Bhatti does not anticipate such claims (FR 8,

16 We leave the factual issue of whether any claims submitted during a
hypothetical continued prosecution of this or a related case satisfy the
written description requirement to the Examiner, and we therefore neither
express nor imply any findings or opinions on such matters.
Appeal 2012-003613
Application 11/219,040
13
ll. 13-15). The problem, as the Examiner has also stated (id. at ll. 15-16), is
that HPDC has not presented such claims.
As our reviewing court has explained in a similar situation, albeit in
reference to patented claims, if the patentee, “who was responsible for
drafting and prosecuting the patent, intended something different, it could
have prevented this result through clearer drafting.” Hoganas AB v. Dresser
Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 951 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Not being persuaded of harmful error in the rejections, we affirm.
C. Order
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 22-24, and 26-28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

cdc