Ex Parte Faasse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2014

12428849 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2014)

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.
12/428,849 04/23/2009 GENE EARL FAASSE TSB-47 9775
22827 7590 09/16/2014
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
TRAN, LEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GENE EARL FAASSE, JEFFREY H. BALDWIN,
and RICHARD ALOYSIUS FAHEY, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2012-008604
Application 12/428,849
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–8 and 15–21.1 Claim 1 is the only independent claim
on appeal, and claims 9–14 and 22 are withdrawn. App. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Claim 7 was rejected in the Final Office Action mailed on Aug. 30, 2011,
as unpatentable over Lavoie, Owens, and Metzger. Final Act. 6–8. In the
Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 7. Ans. 3, 4.
Appeal 2012-008604
Application 12/428,849
2

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a modular waste drain. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A modular waste drain assembly for a vessel having a
drain opening that communicates with a drain line through
which the vessel discharges matter to a sewer, comprising:
an inlet assembly defining an inlet passage, the inlet
assembly being configured to fit into the drain opening of the
vessel;
an outlet assembly defining an outlet passage, the outlet
assembly having a discharge end configured for connection to
the drain line; and
a knife gate valve having a valve opening disposed between
the inlet passage and the outlet passage, the knife gate valve
defining a valve body having a first end and a second end, the
first end being detachably connected to the inlet assembly by at
least one selectively detachable connector and the second end
being detachably connected to the outlet assembly.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lavoie
Owens
Parisi
Metzger
US 4,523,339
US 5,082,247
US 6,058,526
US 6,997,041 B1
June 18, 1985
Jan. 21, 1992
May 9, 2000
Feb. 14, 2006

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are to be reviewed on appeal (Ans. 3; App.
Br. 4.):
Claims 1–6, 8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Lavoie.
Appeal 2012-008604
Application 12/428,849
3
Claims 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lavoie and Owens.
Claims 18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lavoie, Owens, and Parisi.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–6, 8, 15, and 16 as anticipated by Lavoie
Claims 1, 2, 8, 15, and 16
The Examiner found with respect to independent claim 1 that Lavoie
discloses a modular waste drain for a kitchen sink facilitating discharge of
fluids and material to a sewer. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that the drain
includes inlet assembly 32 defining an inlet passage and configured to fit
into a drain opening of the sink; an outlet assembly 33 defining an outlet
passage communicating with a drain line; and a knife gate valve 14 disposed
between the inlet and outlet passages. Id. The Examiner determined that
Lavoie’s gate valve 14 included a valve body having a first end detachably
connected to the inlet assembly, and a second end detachably connected to
outlet assembly 33. Id. at 6(see Examiner modified Fig. 1a).
Appellants argue that claim 1 requires the inlet assembly “to be
configured to fit into the drain opening of the vessel,” and, that Lavoie’s
inlet assembly 32 does not meet this limitation. App. Br. 5. Appellants
contend that because Lavoie’s inlet assembly 32 is connected via nipple 13
to the drain opening of the sink, inlet assembly 32 does not “fit into” the
drain opening as claimed, and further that “[c]onnecting to is not fitting
into,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6.
Observing Lavoie’s Figure 1, valve nipple (inlet) 32 retains a nut 34ʹ,
which is screwed to sink nipple 13 to secure the valve nipple 32 and sink
Appeal 2012-008604
Application 12/428,849
4
nipple 13 together. Lavoie col. 2, ll.1113. Fluid and material from sink 10
is inlet from the drain opening of the sink, identified in the Examiner’s
notations to Figure 1 in the Answer (page 6), through sink nipple 13 and
valve nipple 32 to gate valve 14. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument because the claimed “inlet assembly” does not exclude any
particular elements or connections, such as Lavoie’s drain nipple 32
connected to sink nipple 13. Lavoie’s sink nipple 13 fits into the sink, even
as it is connected to the drain nipple 32. Giving the term “inlet assembly”
the broadest reasonable interpretation, as we must, we agree with the
Examiner that Lavoie’s sink nipple 13 and valve nipple 32 together are an
“inlet assembly” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 9.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Claims 2, 8, 15, and 16 depend from claim 1 and are not argued
separately. See App. Br. 5–11. These claims fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).

Claims 3–6
Claim 3 recites, in addition to the elements of claim 1, “a valve guard
assembly connected to the knife gate valve.” The Examiner found that
Lavoie discloses a valve guard assembly, i.e. upper plate 21 and lower plate
22, which shield the gate valve 14 from external impact. Ans. 6, see Lavoie
Figs. 2 & 3. The Examiner found that Lavoie’s upper and lower plates 21,
22 serve as a guard assembly, and are not “vital” components of the gate
valve. Ans. 10.
Consistent with the reasons set forth by Appellants on pages 6–7 of
the Petition, we disagree with the Examiner’s determination that the vital
components of Lavoie’s gate valve 14 do not include upper and lower plates
Appeal 2012-008604
Application 12/428,849
5
21, 22. The Examiner states that upper and lower plates 21, 22 “of Lavoie
do[] not perform any fluid control and therefore cannot be considered as a
vital or base component of the knife gate valve.” Id. at 11. Our review of
Lavoie’s Specification and claims indicates that the upper and lower plates
21, 22 define passages, i.e. registering holes 27 and 28 directing fluid and
material between the valve gate inlet (top nipple 32) and outlet (bottom
nipple 33). Lavoie col. 2, ll. 16, Fig. 1. Indeed, Lavoie’s Specification
describes the plates and holes as imperative structural and functional
components of the valve for fluid control, explaining the movement of
“valve plate 26 between a valve closing position between the two registering
holes 27, 28 of casing plates 21 and 22 and valve opening position
uncovering said holes 27, 28.” Id.
The evidence better supports the conclusion that upper and lower
plates are a vital component of valve 14 corresponding to the first end and
the second end of Appellants’ claimed valve body. Consistent with the
principle that all limitations in a claim must be considered to be meaningful,
it is improper here to rely on upper and lower plates 21, 22 as being both the
claimed valve body and a valve guard assembly “connected to” the valve.
See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three
separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one
of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that the upper and lower
plates of Lavoie disclose the claimed valve guard assembly recited in
claim 3. Accordingly, where claims 46 are directly dependent upon
claim 3, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 36.

Appeal 2012-008604
Application 12/428,849
6
Claims 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Lavoie and Owens
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are indirectly dependent upon claim 1.
Appellants argue that Owens fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lavoie with
respect to the claimed “inlet assembly.” App. Br. 7–8. There is no
deficiency to remedy in that regard, thus, we sustain the rejection of claims
17, 19, and 20.

Claims 18 and 21 as unpatentable over Lavoie, Owens and Parisi
Claims 18 and 21 are both directly dependent upon claim 1.
Appellants state that Parisi fails to cure the deficiencies of Lavoie with
respect to the claimed “inlet assembly.” App. Br. 10. There are no
deficiencies to cure in that regard, thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 18
and 21.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 8, and
15–21 are AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 36 is REVERSED.

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw