Ex Parte Equit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

13046998 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/046,998 03/14/2011
26096 7590 08/15/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P,C
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander Equit
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.
B5245US; 67267-029US1 6032
EXAMINER
DO, HAILEY KYUNG AE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER EQUIT and RALF KETTEMANN
Appeal2014-005555
Application 13/046,998
Technology Center 3700
Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alexander Equit and Ralf Kettemann (Appellants) appeal under 3 5
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-005555
Application 13/046,998
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a valve manifold. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A valve manifold comprising:
a housing including a central mixing chamber and a shell
surface, the shell surface having at least two valve ports provided
thereon with each valve port being associated with one valve;
a first valve port of the at least two valve ports having three
openings and further valve ports of the at least two valve ports
each having three openings;
a respective first opening of each of the at least two valve
ports being in direct fluid communication with the central mixing
chamber and second and third openings of each of the at least
two valve ports each being in fluid communication with an
inflow or outflow via a duct; and
a bottom of the mixing chamber, in relation to a plane
arranged perpendicularly to a vertical longitudinal axis of the
housing, has a slope towards the first opening of the first valve
port so that a liquid, following gravity, will flow from the mixing
chamber towards the first valve port so that the mixing chamber
will empty automatically towards the first valve port.
Appeal Br. 11, Claims App. (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kovacs US 6,237,637 Bl May 29, 2001
Backlund US 6,250,332 Bl June 26, 2001
2
Appeal2014-005555
Application 13/046,998
REJECTIONS
(I) Claims 1, 2, and 4--19 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Backlund.
(II) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Backlund and Kovacs.
ANALYSIS
Re} ection (I)
The Examiner finds that Backlund discloses all the features recited in
claim 1, and in particular, discloses "a central mixing chamber (23) ...
[wherein] a bottom of the mixing chamber (23), in relation to a plane
arranged perpendicularly to a vertical longitudinal axis of the housing, has a
slope towards [a] first opening (22) of [a] first valve port (12)." Final Act.
3--4. Regarding the meaning of the term "slope" in claim 1, the Examiner
states, "[r]elying on [Appellants'] source (dictionary.com), one definition of
'a slope' is defined as 'the degree or amount of such inclination[.]' A flat
surface can have 'a slope' of zero; therefore, B[d]cklund '332 does indeed
have 'a slope towards the first opening[,]' albeit of zero degrees." Final
Act. 2 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's interpretation of claim 1 is
unreasonably broad and that a flat surface does not qualify as a bottom "that
is sloped towards the first valve port." See Appeal Br. 4--6 (citing Spec. i-fi-1
7, 46).
In response, the Examiner states, "[t]he explanation of the term
'slope' was merely to clarify to Appellant[s] the difference between the term
'a slope' and 'sloped."' Ans. 11. The Examiner further states, "[ s ]ince a
3
Appeal2014-005555
Application 13/046,998
'slope' is a ratio of rise over run of a line or surface, by the mathematical
definition of the term 'slope[,]' all lines or surfaces have a 'slope[.]' A
horizontal line has a rise of zero over an infinite run, therefore, would have a
slope of zero." Ans. 12. Nonetheless, in the Answer, the Examiner also
finds that the walls of central space 23 in Backlund qualify as the bottom of
the mixing chamber recited in claim 1. Ans. 3, 9--12 (reproducing Backlund,
Fig. 3, with annotations by the Examiner identifying a portion of valve
housing 10 as a bottom of the mixing chamber).
In reply, Appellants state, "[t]he bottom of the mixing chamber in
Backlund '332 is flat, and therefore, there is always residual fluid left at the
bottom. As such, the mixing chamber does not empty automatically as
claimed." Reply Br. 2. Appellants also contest the Examiner's
interpretation of the meaning of the word "slope" in claim 1, asserting that
this term means "sloped, inclined, or slanted." Reply Br. 2-3.
When claim terminology is construed during examination, claims are
to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. A cad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants' Specification
states:
The bottom of the mixmg chamber, in relation to a plane
arranged perpendicularly to a vertical longitudinal axis of the
housing, has a slope towards the first opening of the first valve
port. In the installed state of the valve manifold, the longitudinal
axis is disposed to be vertical, so that a plane arranged
perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis extends horizontally.
Since the bottom of the mixing chamber has a slope with respect
to this horizontal plane, a liquid, following gravity, will flow
from the mixing chamber towards the first valve port. The
4
Appeal2014-005555
Application 13/046,998
central mixing chamber will thus empty itself automatically
towards the first valve port after the rinsing process. It is
therefore reliably excluded that liquid residues are left behind
after the rinsing of the mixing chamber.
Spec. i-f 7 (emphasis added). Appellants' Specification further states, "[t]o
obtain the self-emptying function of the valve manifold, the duct which is in
fluid communication with an external port has a slope towards the mixing
chamber in relation to a plane arranged perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis
of the housing." Spec. i-f 15. Appellants' Specification does not discuss the
term slope in a way that would allow for a slope of zero. Accordingly,
consistent with Appellants' Specification, we interpret the phrase "has a
slope towards the first opening" as requiring some incline greater than zero
toward the first opening such that the bottom is not parallel with the plane
recited in claim 1. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that,
based on an interpretation of claim 1 allowing for a slope of zero,
"[Backlund] does indeed have [a bottom with] 'a slope towards the first
opening" (Final Act. 2).
Regarding the Examiner's finding, in the Answer, that the walls of
central space 23 qualify as the bottom of a mixing chamber with a slope as
required in claim 1 (Ans. 3, 9-12), this finding is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. As Appellants note (Reply Br. 2--4 ), claim 1
requires that "liquid, following gravity, will flow from the mixing chamber
towards the first valve port so that the mixing chamber will empty
automatically towards the first valve port" (Appeal Br. 11 ). The Examiner
does not adequately explain how the slanted walls of central chamber 23
satisfy this functional requirement. In any event, we do not agree that the
walls of central chamber 23 qualify as the "bottom" of central chamber 23,
5
Appeal2014-005555
Application 13/046,998
particularly in view of the requirement in claim 1 that the bottom be
positioned with respect to a plane perpendicular to a vertical longitudinal
axis of the housing. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--19 as anticipated by Backlund.
Re} ection (II)
The Examiner finds that Backlund does not teach a bottom of a
mixing chamber with a slope within a range of 3 ° to 10° as recited in claim
3, and the Examiner relies on Kovacs to teach this feature. Final Act. 7.
However, as discussed above, we do not agree with the Examiner that
Backlund discloses a bottom of a mixing chamber with a slope towards the
first opening of the first valve port as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the
Examiner's reliance on Kovacs for the particular range of possible slopes
recited in claim 3 does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection of claim
1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 as
unpatentable over Backlund and Kovacs.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 are reversed.
REVERSED
6