Ex Parte Cabezas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2008

10753672 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOSE MIGUEL CABEZAS
____________

Appeal 2008-2349
Application 10/753,672
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: June 11, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7. (Final Office Action mailed March 31, 2005). Claims 8-11, the
only other pending claims, have been objected to, but indicated as allowable
Appeal 2008-2349
Application 10/753,672

if rewritten in independent form. (Id.). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant’s invention is directed to a pipe flange having a flange face
and central bore, where “the face compris[es] an internal flange recess
extending into the flange and surrounding the bore . . . [and] the internal
flange recess comprises a textured surface at least partially surrounding the
bore.” (Spec. 3, ll. 12-16).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A pipe flange apparatus comprising a first pipe
flange having a frontal face surrounding a central bore passing
through the flange, the face comprising an internal flange recess
extending into the flange and surrounding the bore, and a
groove extending into the flange and surrounding the internal
flange recess, wherein the internal flange recess comprises a
textured surface at least partially surrounding the bore such that
the textured surface is adapted to engage another surface.

The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner to reject
the claims on appeal are:
Egner U.S. 5,573,282 Nov. 12, 1996
Campbell U.S. 6,543,811 Apr. 8, 2003
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Egner. Further, the Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Campbell.
We AFFIRM.

ISSUES
Has Appellant shown the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining claims 1-7 are anticipated by the prior art?
2
Appeal 2008-2349
Application 10/753,672

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Examiner found that Egner’s Figure 3 discloses a pipe
flange apparatus having a first pipe flange S with a frontal face and
central bore (defined by a space surrounded by the flange S), with the
face having an internal flange recess X extending into the flange and
surrounding the bore, and a groove Z extending into the flange S and
surrounding the recess X. (Ans. 2 bridging to 3; Fig. 3).
2. Egner’s Fig. 3 is reproduced below:

Fig. 3 depicts a partial cross-sectional view of a pipe flange S
having recessed spaces X, Y, and Z engaging a plastic liner flange
member having sectors A, B, and C. (Col. 4, ll. 45-49; col. 4, ll. 62-
65).
3. Egner teaches a flange with an internal recess X having a
“convex conical surface 11.” (Col. 5, l. 49; Fig. 3).
4. Egner discloses an internal recess X having a conical surface
that “produces a camming or wedging action tending to prevent radial
3
Appeal 2008-2349
Application 10/753,672

inward movement of the conical surface of sector A.” (Col. 5, ll. 52-
55; Fig. 3).
5. Egner discloses a protrusion at recessed space Y extending
from surface 11 of internal recessed space X. (Fig. 3).
6. In the Specification, Appellant describes a “textured surface” as
“formed with gaps or other features adapted to engage a surface of a
plastic flange in order to form a better seal with, and/or to better retain
the plastic flange.” (Emphasis added; Spec. 10, ll. 17-19).
7. Fig 4 of Campbell is reproduced below:

Figure 4 depicts a cross-sectional view of flange 30 having
flange section 32 with grooves 32c and 32d to engage liner section
36m for seating liner 36. (Col. 4, ll. 46-51).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
4
Appeal 2008-2349
Application 10/753,672

“It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . .” In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

ANALYSIS
The Anticipation of Claims 1-5 by Egner.
Appellant groups claims 1-5 together, submitting specific arguments
directed to claim 1, and does not argue the separate patentability of claims 2-
5. (Br. 3-5). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the rejected
claims and confine our discussion to this claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2005).
The Examiner found that Egner discloses a pipe flange apparatus
having a first pipe flange S with a frontal face and central bore (defined by a
space surrounded by the flange S), with the face having an internal flange
recess X extending into the flange and surrounding the bore, and a groove Z
extending into the flange S and surrounding the recess X. (FF 1). The
Appellant does not dispute these findings, but contends that Egner does not
disclose “an internal flange recess comprising a textured surface.” (Br. 5, ll.
4-5).
Appellant asserts that a textured surface, as described in the
Specification, must be “a surface formed with gaps or other features adapted
to engage a surface of a plastic flange in order to form a better seal with,
and/or to better retain the plastic flange.” (Emphasis added; Br. 4, ll. 13-18;
FF 6). Furthermore, Appellant contends that the description of a “textured
surface” requires that the surface “is adapted to engage another surface.”
(Id. 4, ll. 21-22). Appellant argues that “[b]ased on the meaning of ‘textured
5
Appeal 2008-2349
Application 10/753,672

surface’ within the specification, its use in the figures, and its use as a
limitation in the claims, Egner cannot be said to disclose an internal flange
recess comprising a textured surface.” (Id. 5, ll. 3-5).
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. The features of a
“textured surface” are disclosed in the prior art. Specifically, we find that
Egner discloses a surface having “features” that are “adapted to engage a
surface of a plastic flange” so as to “form a better seal with, and/or to better
retain the plastic flange.” These features include a “convex conical surface”
that “produces a camming or wedging action tending to prevent radial
inward movement” of a plastic liner flange (FF 2, 3, 4), and a protrusion Y,
that extends from the surface of the internal recess X. (FF 5). In view of
Egner’s explicit disclosure of a recess surface having both a conical surface
preventing movement to retain a plastic flange and a protrusion that engages
a portion of the plastic flange, it reasonably appears that the prior art recess
surface would better retain the plastic flange, as compared to recess surfaces
without the disclosed features.
We find nothing in Appellant’s description of a “textured surface” that
limits the claimed invention to structures patentably distinguishable from the
prior art. Furthermore, Appellant has not shown that the prior art lacks a
“textured surface.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the
applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of
showing that they are not.”). Accordingly, we find that Appellant has failed
to show that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining Egner anticipates
the claimed invention.

6
Appeal 2008-2349
Application 10/753,672

The Anticipation of Claims 1-7 by Campbell.
Appellant groups claims 1-7 together, again submitting specific
arguments directed to claim 1, and does not argue the separate patentability
of claims 2-7. (Br. 5). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative and
confine our discussion to this claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that “Campbell also fails to disclose an internal
flange recess that comprises a textured surface.” (Br. 5, ll. 9-10).
Furthermore, Appellant asserts that the claimed surface distinguishes from
the prior art “‘such that the surface is adapted to engage another surface.’”
Again, relying on the Specification’s description of a “textured surface,”
Appellant contends that “Campbell also fails as an anticipatory reference.”
Appellant’s arguments are again unpersuasive to show the Examiner
reversibly erred. Campbell discloses a flange section 32 having a recess
surface with “features” comprising grooves 32c and 32d that seat the flange
section of a liner 36. (FF 7). With these grooves, it reasonably appears that
the prior art structure will better retain a flange of any material. That is, a
recess surface having grooves would better retain a flanged liner than a
recess surface without grooves. Once again, we find nothing in Appellant’s
description of a “textured surface” that limits the claimed invention to
structures patentably distinguishable from those disclosed by the prior art.
Furthermore, Appellant fails to show that the prior art structure does not
have a “textured surface.” Accordingly, Appellant has not met his burden to
show that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining the claimed
invention is anticipated by Campbell.

7
Appeal 2008-2349
Application 10/753,672

CONCLUSION OF LAW
On this appeal record, Applicant has failed to show that the Examiner
reversibly erred in finding that the appealed claims are anticipated by the
prior art.
The Examiner’s decision to reject appealed claims 1-7 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tf/ls

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP.
611 ANTON BLVD
SUITE 1400
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
8