Ex Parte Broderick

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12875319 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/875,319 09/03/2010
37013 7590 10/03/2016
Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP
20609 Gordon Park Square
Suite 150
Ashburn, VA 20147
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael BRODERICK
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TOMK-0016A 8957
EXAMINER
MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
mail@rkmllp.com
EOfficeAction@rkmllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL BRODERICK
Appeal2015-000409
Application 12/875,319
Technology Center 3700
Before: BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and MARK A. GEIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, and 4--8. Claims 9-14 have been withdrawn from consideration, and
claim 3 has been cancelled. App. Br. 2. The Appellant argues only the
rejections of claim 1. Id. at 2-9; Reply Br. 2--4. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-000409
Application 12/875,319
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are "directed to pressure relief or reduction arrangements
for steam exhaust from a steam peeler pressure vessel." Spec. p. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A self-sealing pressure release apparatus comprising:
a pressure vessel;
a valve assembly having a valve body with an exit opening
through which pressurized steam exits the valve body and a
displaceable closure member displaceable between a pressure
release position and a pressure seal position at which the closure
member seals the exit opening; and
a double acting actuator that displaces the closure member
from the pressure seal position to the pressure release position
against the pressure of steam in the pressure vessel to release
pressurized steam from the pressure vessel,
wherein the closure member is configured to release
pressurized steam from the pressure vessel when the closure
member is in the pressure release position,
wherein the closure member is configured to seal
pressurized steam in the pressure vessel when the closure
member is in the pressure seal position,
wherein the closure member is configured to be
maintained in the pressure seal position by pressurized steam
from the pressure vessel without actuating the double-acting
actuator,
wherein the double acting actuator has a spindle,
wherein the closure member is mounted at one end of the
spindle,
wherein the closure member has a larger diameter than the
spindle, and
wherein the closure member at the pressure release
position completely clears the exit opening of the valve body to
allow instant exhausting of pressure from the pressure vessel
through the valve body, and
wherein the double acting actuator is only actuated to
displace the closure member to the pressure release position.
2
Appeal2015-000409
Application 12/875,319
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Perkins us 4,044,834 Aug. 30, 1977
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 4--8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 2.
Claims 1, 2, and 4--8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Perkins. Ans. 3-7.
Claims 1, 2, and 4--8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Perkins. Ans. 7-12.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as indefinite because "[i]t is not
understood how a 'double acting actuator' can be 'only actuated to displace
the closure member to the pressure release position," and thus, "[i]t seems
what operates as claimed would be a 'single acting actuator."' Ans. 2. As
the Appellant correctly points out, an indefiniteness rejection "should be
made only when a person of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably
determine the metes and bounds of a claim." App. Br. 4. Here, the
Appellant adequately explains the desirable nature of a double acting
actuator (App. Br. 3) and also points out in the disclosure why a double
acting actuator, though one that only operates as claimed while in use, is
desirable. Spec p. 9, 11. 28-34. While we agree with the Examiner that this
3
Appeal2015-000409
Application 12/875,319
is a somewhat odd limitation, we do not believe it is sufficiently self-
contradictory so as to rise to the level necessary to support an indefiniteness
rejection. As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as indefinite.
Anticipation and Obviousness
The Appellant argues that the Examiner's use of Perkins in the art-
based rejections is improper because Perkins at least fails to disclose "a
closure member configured to be maintained in the pressure seal position by
pressurized steam from the pressure vessel without actuating the double-
acting actuator." App. Br. 4. This is allegedly so because, among other
things, "Perkins is completely silent regarding steam." Id. The Examiner
responds that "Perkins' disclosure of handling a first fluid (drilling fluid) is
seen as sufficient evidence that Perkins' device could handle a different fluid
(steam)." Ans. 14. The Examiner further states that "there is no feature of
Perkins which suggests that it is only capable of being used with a non-
compressible fluid (such as drilling fluid), and is not capable of being used
with a compressible fluid (such as steam)." Id.
While the Examiner may be correct, at least in regard to the first
assertion, such assertions are insufficient to support the rejection. As the
Appellant correctly states, "the examiner has not shown any objective
support that steam would work as a substitute for drilling fluid" in Perkins.
Reply Br. 2. Furthermore, as also pointed out by the Appellant, contrary to
the claimed device, "when the fluid pressure goes low, the double-acting
actuator is actuated toward the closing position until the fluid pressure
rises." Reply Br. 3. As such "Perkins needs to actuate the double-acting
actuator to maintain the valve plug toward the closed position." Id.
4
Appeal2015-000409
Application 12/875,319
Although Perkins has many of the same structural features, the key
features argued above simply are not clearly present nor has the Examiner
asserted any basis for them being inherent if Perkins were operated using
steam. The Examiner's only basis for asserting that Perkins could operate as
claimed is that both steam and drilling fluid are fluids. Additionally, as the
Appellant notes, Perkins' function is quite different from the claimed
pressure release valve. The claimed device actuates the closure member and
then relies upon the system pressure to maintain it in place. As noted above,
the Appellant's disclosure specifically points out that "[m]inimal air pressure
is required to close the valve, as little as 5 PSI (pounds per square inch), or
even less given this particular advantageous orientation of valve member
67." App. Br. 3-4.
This is in stark contrast to the operation of a hydraulic piston as
shown in Perkins. Perkins' device operates to regulate pressure within the
system and closes the valve to increase pressure if a low pressure is detected,
but also opens if the pressure is too high to lower the pressure. App. Br. 6.
In order to do this, Perkins' hydraulic actuator must be able to exert
sufficient force to overcome the building pressure within the chamber to
move the piston/closure member to the open position, thus, also overcoming
the seal made by flange 148.
Additionally, while the Examiner asserts that flange 148 is larger than
spindle 128 and thus, meets the limitations of the claim (Ans. 5), there is no
evidence to support that this flange in and of itself maintains the seal as
pressure increases. First, as noted above, Perkins specifically discloses that
the hydraulic piston system 80 is capable of overcoming the seal 148 in
order to reduce pressure, thus, clearly contradicting the Examiner's position.
5
Appeal2015-000409
Application 12/875,319
Second, Perkins does not rely solely on seal 148, but also requires an
additional spiral seal 146 to aid in sealing and regulation of the drilling fluid.
Accordingly, it would seem that seal 148 does not perform as the Examiner
claims it would.
Lastly, contrary to the Examiner's application of Perkins, one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that a hydraulic piston such as
system 80 of Perkins relies solely on the pressure applied by the fluid
entering and exiting either of lines 84/86 for operation. It is the hydraulic
fluid/pressure exerted by system 80 that controls all operation of the seal, not
the internal pressure of the overall system as asserted by the Examiner.
Accordingly, not only is Perkins silent regarding its applicability to a system
where the fluid is steam rather than drilling fluid, we agree with the
Appellant that Perkins actually operates in a manner that is inconsistent with
the claimed operation wherein steam would be the fluid. As such, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claim 1 over Perkins as either
anticipated or obvious.
Although, as noted above, the Appellant appeals only the rejection of
claim 1, because the Appellant has not canceled the dependent claims also
rejected, we take that statement to mean that the Appellant relies solely on
its arguments for claim 1 and that the dependent claims stand or fall with
claim 1. Given that claims 2 and 4--8 depend from claim 1 either directly or
indirectly, a reversal of the rejection of claim 1 necessarily requires reversal
of the rejection of the dependent claims as we could not summarily affirm a
rejection of dependent claims based upon a faulty rejection of the
independent claims from which they depend. Accordingly, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2 and 4--8.
6
Appeal2015-000409
Application 12/875,319
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--8 is reversed.
REVERSED
7