Ex Parte Bellasalma et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 10, 2005

09864809 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 2005)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_________________
Ex parte GERARD JAY BELLASALMA, JOON TAEK KIM,
and LLOYD RAMSEY
_________________
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
_________________
ON BRIEF
_________________
Before FRANKFORT, MCQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
Per curiam
DECISION ON APPEAL
Gerard Jay Bellasalma et al. originally took this appeal
from the final rejection (mailed March 18, 2003) of claims 1
through 22 and 26 through 31. Since then, the appellants have
canceled claims 13 and 15, and the examiner has withdrawn all
rejections of claims 11, 22, 27 and 29 which currently stand
objected to as depending from rejected claims. Hence, the appeal
now involves claims 1 through 10, 12, 14, 16 through 21, 26, 28,
30 and 31.
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
2
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “a molding system, and more
particularly to a valve assembly which suppresses an initial
surge of a fluid material component from a feed assembly”
(specification, page 1). Representative claims 1 and 17 read as
follows:
1. A valve assembly for a mix head assembly of a molding
system comprising:
a mix head comprising an inlet to a mixer section and an
outlet from said mixer section;
an input port to a passage;
a plurality of sequentially activatable valves communicating
with said passage to selectively suppress a flow of fluid through
said passage; and
an output port from said passage to said mix head.
17. A molding system comprising:
a mix head comprising an inlet to a mixer section and an
outlet from said mixer section;
an input port to a passage, said input port communicating
with a feed assembly;
a plurality of sequentially activatable valves each defining
a longitudinal axis, each of said plurality of sequentially
activatable valves include an opening transverse to the
longitudinal axis and alignable with said passage to selectively
suppress a flow of fluid through said passage;
a bias adjacent each of said plurality of sequentially
activatable valves to bias said valve toward an open position;
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
3
an actuator to selectively activate each of said plurality
of sequentially activatable valves; and
an output port from said passage, said output port
communicating with said mix head.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Paulson 887,120 May 12, 1908
Larsen 1,196,121 Aug. 29, 1916
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 7, 17 through 19, 26, 28, 30 and 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Larsen.
Claims 8 through 10, 12, 14, 16, 20 and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Larsen.
Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 10, 12, 14, 16 through 21, 26,
28, 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Paulson.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
March 22, 2004 and July 30, 2004) and the answer (mailed May 28,
2004) for the respective positions of the appellants and examiner
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
1 The final rejection also included a 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 12, 14, 16 through 22
and 26 through 31, and a 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 27 and 29. Upon reconsideration, the
examiner has withdrawn these rejections (see page 3 in the
answer).
4
regarding the merits of these rejections.1
Discussion
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 7, 17
through 19, 26, 28, 30 and 31 as being anticipated by Larsen
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. V.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field
of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. V. Genentech
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Larsen discloses “a pressure regulating valve interposed in
[a] pipe supplying actuating fluid to [a] pump which will
automatically cut off the supply of motive fluid upon a sudden
reduction of pressure in the tank or reservoir . . . and whereby
the supply of the motive fluid will be automatically varied and
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
5
controlled” (page 1, lines 19 through 26).
Independent claim 1 recites a valve assembly for a mix head
assembly of a molding system comprising, inter alia, a mix head
comprising an inlet to a mixer section and an outlet from the
mixer section. In rejecting claim 1, the examiner finds that
Larsen “discloses a valve assembly comprising a mix head (6,5 the
bottom one in Fig.3) comprising an inlet to and outlet from a mix
section” (answer, page 4). Larsen actually teaches that “5
designates [a] steam supply pipe which is made up of a plurality
of pipe sections coupled together as indicated at 6” (page 1,
lines 51 through 54). Nonetheless, the examiner submits that
“[m]ixing could take place in this structural element, for
example, if an inhomogeneous fluid were flowing therethrough and
became more homogeneous therein through diffusion” (answer, pages
8 and 9).
The examiner’s position here is unsound. Even accepting the
examiner’s conjecture that mixing could take place in Larsen’s
steam supply pipe 5, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not view this pipe as a mix head of the sort recited, however
broadly, in claim 1.
Independent claim 17 recites a molding system comprising,
inter alia, a mix head comprising an inlet to a mixer section and
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
6
an outlet from the mixer section. As is the case above with
respect to claim 1, examiner’s finding that Larsen’s steam pipe 5
constitutes such a mix head is untenable.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 17, and dependent
claims 2 through 7, 18, 19, 26, 28, 30 and 31, as being
anticipated by Larsen.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8 through 10, 12,
14, 16, 20, and 21 as being unpatentable over Larsen
In addition to not disclosing a valve assembly or molding
system comprising a mix head as recited in independent claims 1
and 17, Larsen would not have suggested same to a person having
ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 8 through 10, 12, 14, 16,
20, and 21 as being unpatentable over Larsen.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7
through 10, 12, 14, 16 through 21, 26, 28, 30 and 31 as being
anticipated by Paulson
Paulson discloses a cornet comprising a mouth pipe 21, three
crooks 10, 11 and 12, three spring-biased, finger-actuatable
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
7
valve assemblies 15 through 20, and a bell pipe 30.
In applying Paulson against independent claims 1 and 17, the
examiner finds that the above discussed mix head limitations in
these claims are met by the bell pipe 30 of Paulson’s cornet. In
short, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view the
bell pipe of a cornet as a mix head of the sort recited.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 17, and dependent
claims 2 through 5, 7 through 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 through 21, 26,
28, 30 and 31, as being anticipated by Paulson.
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
8
Summary
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 10,
12, 14, 16 through 21, 26, 28, 30 and 31 is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/gjh
Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
9
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009