Ex Parte Brittan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 3, 201813279939 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/279,939 10/24/2011 Jerry J. Brittan 65856-0142 9392 101911 7590 01/05/2018 EATON CORPORATION c/o FISHMAN STEWART PLLC 39533 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 140 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER CHAUDRY, ATIF H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/05/2018 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): MS tewart @ fishstewip. com J Guenther @ fishstewip. com docketing @ fishstewip. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JERRY J. BRITTAN and GRAEME A. JACKSON1 Appeal 2016-007030 Application 13/279,939 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—25 in the present application (App. Br. 5). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134. We REVERSE. 1 Collectively referred to as “Appellant” herein. The real party in interest is Eaton Corporation (Appeal Brief (hereinafter “App. Br.”) 3). Appeal 2016-007030 Application 13/279,939 The claimed invention is directed to a hydraulic distribution system having dual pumps and a method therefor (Title; Abstract; Claims App’x). Representative independent claim 1 reads as follows (App. Br. 16, Claims App’x, emphasis added): 1. A hydraulic system comprising: a first fluid circuit; a first pump fluidly connected to the first fluid circuit, the first pump configured to produce a fluid output at a first flow rate when operated at a selected speed; a second fluid circuit; a second pump selectively fluidly connectable to the first fluid circuit and the second fluid circuit, the second pump configured to produce a fluid output at a second flow rate when operated at the selected speed, the second flow rate being greater than the first flow rate of the first pump; a first valve moveable between a fully open position and a closed position, the first valve operable to fluidly connect the second pump to the second fluid circuit when the first valve is arranged in the fully open position, wherein when the first valve is in the fully open position, then only flow from the second pump passes to the second fluid circuit. The Examiner rejects claims 1—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of De Maziere et al. (US 2008/0035443 Al, pub. Feb. 14, 2008) in view of Oka (US 2010/0281859 Al, pub. Nov. 11, 2010). 2 Appeal 2016-007030 Application 13/279,939 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that the hydraulic system shown in Figure 1 of De Maziere discloses the invention of claim 1, including a pump having outlets connected to first fluid circuit ACT (Actuator) and second fluid circuit LCS (Lubrication and Cooling System), and: first valve 050 operable to fluidly connect the second pump pressure outlet Y to the second fluid circuit LCS when the first valve is arranged in the fully open position, wherein when the first valve is in the fully open position, then only flow from the second pump Y passes to the second fluid circuit LCS. (Final Act. 4). The Examiner concedes that “De Maziere fails to disclose the first high pressure and second low pressure pump outlets as separate pumps,” but finds that Oka “teaches a similar high and low fluid circuit and supply system comprising a high pressure pump 3 with lower flow rate and low pressure pump 4 with high flow rate.” (Final Act. 4, citing Oka 17; Fig. 1). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that: It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the device disclosed by De Maziere with separate high/low pressure pumps with low pressure pump having higher flow rate as taught by Oka as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute pumping arrangement yielding predictable results of providing higher flow to the low pressure circuit as generally required by the lubrication and cooling circuit in comparison to low flow rate requirements for actuator system. The pump outlet X or Figure of De Maziere would then represent the high pressure low flow rate first pump and pump outlet Y would be low pressure high flow second pump. 3 Appeal 2016-007030 Application 13/279,939 (Final Act. 4). The Appellant submits arguments challenging the Examiner’s finding with respect to De Maziere, noting that the Examiner’s application of Oka does not address the alleged deficiency of De Maziere (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 8). In particular, the Appellant argues that De Maziere does not disclose the limitation “wherein when the first valve is in the fully open position, then only flow from the second pump passes to the second fluid circuit.” (App. Br. 11). The Appellant relies on paragraphs 18, 19, 23, and 24 of De Maziere to assert that De Maziere “teaches that when valve 050 is open, then a proportional pressure-relief valve 030 [i.e., regulator means] causes oil to flow to the LCS.’” (App. Br. 9-11). Thus, the Appellant argues that in De Maziere: pressure-relief valve 030 opens and oil flows through valve 030 to the LCS which . . . clearly arrives from the ‘first fluid circuit’ and thereby from ‘first pump’ X. Accordingly, the recitations of claim 1 are not taught or suggested in De Maziere, because flow does not flow ‘only’ from second pump ‘Y’ to the second fluid circuit when the first valve is in the fully open position.” (App. Br. 12). Referring to paragraph 23 of De Maziere, the Examiner responds that: when oil on High pressure side ACT is normal and does not need to be relieved, the pressure relief valve 030 will remain closed and no flow from either pump would flow to the second circuit through 030 such that second fluid circuit LCS will receive fluid only from low pressure pump side “Y” and will only receive the flow when valve 050 is open. (Ans. 10). 4 Appeal 2016-007030 Application 13/279,939 Indeed, De Maziere discloses that “[i]n case oil is to be relieved by the pressure-relief valve 030, the oil is guided to the lubrication and cooling system of the DCT, represented in the drawing by the block LCS.” (De Maziere 123). Thus, the flow of high pressure fluid (from the first circuit) to LCS (i.e., second fluid circuit), would only occur during certain operating conditions where “oil is to be relived.” Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that: in case oil is not to be relieved, i.e., when pressure on high pressure side is normal, the relief valve 030 would be at its normally closed position and therefore, fluid would flow “only” from second pump “Y” to the second fluid circuit when “first valve” 050 is in the fully open position. (Ans. 11). The Appellant’s characterization of De Maziere is not entirely accurate because there does not appear to be disclosure as to the coordinated or correlated operation of pressure-relief/regulator valve 30 and the directional valve 050. Hence, it cannot be said that “when valve 050 is open, then a proportional pressure-relief valve 030 causes oil to flow to the LCS.” (App. Br. 11, emphasis added). Nevertheless, we ultimately agree with the Appellant. As noted, there is no disclosure in De Maziere as to the operational state of directional valve 050 when regulator means 030 is closed (or for that matter, when it is open). The operation of regulator means 030 is described separately within the disclosure of De Maziere. As such, while there may be instances during operation when regulator means 030 is closed, that does not connote that directional valve 050 is in a fully open condition. 5 Appeal 2016-007030 Application 13/279,939 The Examiner’s rejection appears to be premised on the fact that De Maziere implicitly discloses that regulator means 30 may be closed, and thus, if directional valve 050 is fully open at that moment of operation, the claim limitation at issue would be satisfied. However, we think the underlying claim interpretation of such a finding is unreasonably broad. The claim language is clear, and in the context of De Maziere, would require that when the directional valve 050 is fully open, only flow from second pressure outlet y passes to LCS, so that flow through regulator 030 is precluded. We understand this limitation as requiring such operation during all instances of operation of the hydraulic system and its directional valve 050 in view of its cause-and-effect recitation. Such limitation is not satisfied by a mere instance where directional valve 050 happens to be fully open, and regulator means 030 happens to be closed, while in other instances, directional valve 050 happens to be fully open, but regulator means 030 happens to be open as well, so that fluid from the high pressure circuit is provided to LCS. In the above regard, we agree with the Appellant that “regulator means [030 in De Mazier] is a critical component to the proper operation of the disclosed system of the reference.” (Reply Br. 2). As the Appellant points out: [a]s stated in paragraph [0019] of the reference, for example: “Regulator means 030 are provided for directing excess oil from the high pressure section HPS to the lubrication system LCS, and for keeping the pressure in the high pressure section HPS constant.” In referencing element 030, paragraph [0023] recites that its role is “to keep the system pressure stable.” As yet another example, paragraph [0023] goes on to state: “A pilot pressure is a reference pressure so that the proportional pressure- 6 Appeal 2016-007030 Application 13/279,939 relief valve 030 knows how much oil is to be relieved to keep the system pressure constant.[]” (Reply Br. 3). Accordingly, as the Appellant argues, “regulator means 030 operates to provide oil from the HPS to the LPS and such operation is clearly within the normal operation of De Maziere.” (Reply Br. 7). Hence, more likely than not, the regulator means 030 of Maziere would be operating to provide flow to LCS under normal operating conditions during which directional valve 050 is fully open, which is contrary to the claim language. In view of the above, we agree that De Maziere does not disclose the limitation “when the first valve is in the fully open position, then only flow from the second pump passes to the second fluid circuit,” and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—9 that depend from claim 1. The Appellant relies on the same arguments to assert patentability of independent claims 10 and 17, which include limitations requiring substantially the same operation as claim 1 (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 8). Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 17, as well as claims 11—16, and claims 18—25 that ultimately depend from claim 10 or claim 17. The Appellant’s objections to the Examiner’s rejection being based on a new ground set forth in an Advisory Action mailed September 9, 2015, are moot (App. Br. 8, 13—15). 7 Appeal 2016-007030 Application 13/279,939 CONCLUSIONS The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—25 is REVERSED. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation