Ex Parte Feenstra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

11762179 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
11/762,179 06/13/2007 Shawn J. Feenstra 6065-000015/US 1313
27572 7590 04/04/2017
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
LE, VIET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN J. FEENSTRA, ELDON D. JACKSON,
MARTIN H. WORKMAN, and MICHAEL J. BOSMA
Appeal 2014-009498
Application 11/762,179
Technology Center 3700
Before: PATRICK R. SCANLON, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—9, 11, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 28, and 30. Appeal
Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral argument was held
February 14, 2017.
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is The Viking Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-009498
Application 11/762,179
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a pre-primed preaction sprinkler system.
Spec. 12. Claims 1, 14, and 28 are the only independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A fire protection sprinkler system, comprising:
a single pressurized liquid supply having a pressurized
liquid;
a plurality of sprinkler heads connected to a piping
network for distributing said pressurized liquid;
means for connecting said single pressurized liquid supply
to said piping network and said plurality of sprinkler heads in a
first mode so as to provide said piping network and said plurality
of sprinkler heads with a first pre-primed flow of said pressurized
liquid and in a second mode so as to provide said piping network
and said plurality of sprinkler heads with a second preaction flow
of said pressurized liquid, said pre-primed flow of said
pressurized liquid being restricted as compared to said preaction
flow of said pressurized liquid, wherein said first pre-primed
flow is diverted to allow said second preaction flow in said
second mode.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ramsey et al. US 5,992,532 Nov. 30, 1999
(“Ramsey”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—4, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 28 and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ramsey.
2
Appeal 2014-009498
Application 11/762,179
Claims 6—9, 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ramsey.
OPINION
Introduction
Both the Appellants’ system and that disclosed by Ramsey provide a
fire extinguishing system which, as commonly installed, connects a
pressurized water supply through a control valve to a sprinkler system. A
fire detection system including, for example, smoke and temperature
sensors, can cause the control valve to open. The Specification discloses
that a restricted flow (termed a “pre-primed” flow) limits water damage in
the event that a sprinkler head (or heads) is triggered without other indicia of
fire such as heat or smoke. Spec. H 32—33. In general, the Examiner’s
conclusion that Ramsey entirely discloses or renders obvious all the claims
rests on the finding that Ramsey provides a “pre-primed” flow from the
source that is at times connected to the piping leading to the sprinklers.
Each of the independent claims includes a requirement along these lines.
Claim 1 requires a “means for connecting [a] pressurized liquid supply to [a
fire sprinkler system] in a first mode [where the first mode provides] a pre-
primed flow [to the sprinklers].” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.)).2 Claim 14
requires the pre-primed flow to remain connected to the sprinklers until the
pre-primed flow is interrupted. Id. at 17. Claim 28 requires a restricted fluid
supply that is connected to the sprinklers and is also used to hold the control
valve in a closed position to prevent preaction flow. Id. at 18—19. As
2 In claim 1, the means for connecting also has a second mode that provides
a “preaction,” i.e. less restricted, flow. Id.
3
Appeal 2014-009498
Application 11/762,179
discussed below, we do not agree with the Examiner that Ramsey provides
an arrangement in which a restricted flow is connected to the sprinklers, and
so do not sustain the rejections.
Claim 1
In connection with claim 1, the Examiner found that Ramsey discloses
a sprinkler system with means for operating the system in two modes:
in a first mode (before flow is restricted through 18) so as
to provide the piping network (see piping network in Figure 1
where 31 is connected) and the plurality of sprinkler heads (31,
see column 3, lines 43-46) with a first pre-primed flow (water
flow as it is restricted though 18; see column 6, lines 27-34; the
“so as to provide” limitations are being treated as functional
recitations) of the pressurized liquid (liquid in 28 is pressurized)
and
in a second mode (see column 6, lines 13-57; second mode
is when 13 retriggers the fire suppression system cycle to repeat)
so as to provide the piping network . . .with a second pre-action
flow of pressurized liquid (second preaction flow that fills pipe
30 prior to retriggering action flow of the wet pipe fire
suppression system 10 as controlled by 13; see column 5, line 66
thru column 6, line 12; see column 5, lines 41-57).
Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner explained these findings:
The nature of restricted flow is not clearly defined in the claims.
The flow is restricted in numerous ways and flows throughout
the entire system and not just the priming line as asserted by the
applicant. The water supply that goes through the control valve
when it is opened is considered a restricted liquid supply. It is
restricted in some manner, the current claim language is not
specific as to what is meant by restricted liquid supply.
Id. at 10.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the modes are described slightly
differently:
4
Appeal 2014-009498
Application 11/762,179
a first mode (before flow is restricted using system 18, wherein
the system applies fluid pressure in chamber 38 to close valve
12) so as to provide the piping network (see piping network in
Figure 1 where 31 is connected) and the plurality of sprinkler
heads (31, see column 3, lines 43 -46) with a first pre-primed flow
(water flow as it is restricted though 12; see column 4, Lines 7-
13; Column 6, Lines 15-18) of the pressurized liquid (liquid in
28 is pressurized) and . . .
a second mode (see column 6, lines 19-39; second mode is when
13 retriggers the fire suppression system cycle to repeat allowing
control valve to stay as open as the spring 56 and fluid pressure
entering at 34 will allow) so as to provide the piping network (see
piping network in Figure 1 where 31 is connected . . .).
Ans. 3. The Examiner’s explanation changed, too:
Ramsey teaches a first mode (Column 4, Lines 7-13,
Column 6, Lines 16-26) wherein, the control valve (12) is open
to fill the system with pre-primed flow in a non-fire condition.
Once the pressure downstream from the valve exceeds the
pressure upstream from the valve, the valve would close. The
control valve is maintained by fluid pressure present in chamber
38, which is controlled by the system to limit the amount of flow
going through the control valve. Referring to Figure 3, fluid
pressure entering at the inlet (34) is inherently restricted by
pressure applied from the priming chamber (38) and the spring.
The system is to control how much pressure is allowed into the
piping network and plurality of sprinklers during a non-fire
condition. As the pressure downstream from the control valve
(through outlet 36) begins to equalize with the pressure from
upstream (through inlet 34) the valve would inherently begin to
close due to the force of the spring (at 56 Fig. 3), during that time
period the flow would inherently be further restricted. Once the
pressure downstream exceeds the pressure from upstream, the
valve is then closed and the flow is completely restricted. During
a fire condition, the system operates in a second mode (Column
[6, Lines] 27-34), the control valve is allowed to be completely
open by releasing all pressure from the priming chamber (38),
fulfilling the second preaction flow required by the claim.
5
Appeal 2014-009498
Application 11/762,179
Ans. 8—9.3
As we understand Ramsey, during start up, water under pressure from
line 28 (Figure 2) unseats the clapper (valve member) in control valve 12
against the bias of a spring (near the tip of lead line 56 in Figure 3), allowing
the sprinkler piping 30 to be filled with water. See Ramsey 6:16—24. When
the sprinkler piping is filled with water under pressure, the clapper seats,
thus closing the valve 12. This happens because the pressure in chamber 38
and in the supply 34 are equal, and the spring biases the clapper closed. The
only restricted (pre-primed) flow in the Ramsey system is provided into
chamber 38 of control valve 12. In the event a sprinkler 31 then opens, an
outlet is provided for water to flow under pressure within line 18, 56, 58, 60
through either solenoid valve 62 or 66 and into outlet 16 of valve 12 (see
Fig. 2), thereby reducing the water pressure within chamber 38 so the
clapper is forced open by the incoming water pressure from line 28. Thus,
there is no passage inside control valve 12 for water to get from chamber 38
to the outlet 36 of the control valve 12 without the full pressure of water
supply 28 also reaching outlet 36. Because there is no restricted flow of
water that reaches the sprinklers, the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 2—3)
that there is a restricted flow through control valve 12 (Appeal Br. 15
(Claims App.)) is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Claim 14
In connection with claim 14, the Examiner identifies the restricted
liquid supply as 18, 58, and 60 (best seen in Ramsey Figure 2). Final Act. 5.
3 Thus, according to the Final Action the first mode is described in Ramsey
at column 6, lines 27—34, but in the Examiner’s Answer, that same passage
describes the second mode. Compare Final Act, bottom of p. 2 to top of
page 3 with Answer, bottom of page 8 to top of page 9.
6
Appeal 2014-009498
Application 11/762,179
The Examiner focuses on the claim limitation that the restricted liquid
supply “maintains the control valve (12, 62, 66) in a closed position until the
restricted liquid supply (18, 58, 60) is interrupted.” Id. The Examiner finds
this limitation is met in Ramsey where “when [solenoid valve] 66 opens[,]
the liquid flow supplied thereby interrupting or stopping flow through 18, 58
and 60 causing [control valve] 12 to close.) Id.', see also Ans. 5.
Again, the Examiner misapprehends the functioning of Ramsey. If
either solenoid valve 62 or 66 is open, the pressure in line 58 falls due to the
flow of liquid through 18, 58, 60, and with it the pressure in control chamber
56/38 (Figure 3). See Ramsey, 4:24—33 and, generally, 5:66—6:57. When
this happens, control valve 12 opens, initiating high-pressure flow to the
sprinklers. Thus, the opening of either valve 62 or 66 actually permits flow
of liquid through 18, 58, 60 to open valve 12 —the opposite of “interrupting
or stopping” such flow to “close” valve 12 which the Examiner finds to
result from the opening of valve 66. The preponderance of the evidence thus
does not support the Examiner’s finding.
Claim 28
Claim 28 includes the requirement of “a restricted liquid supply
fluidly connecting said single pressurized liquid supply to said piping
network and said plurality of sprinkler heads at a pre-primed flow, wherein
said pre-primed flow maintains said control valve in said close position.”
Appeal Br. 18—19 (Claims App.). In connection with claim 28 the Examiner
finds the “restricted liquid supply” portion of this limitation is met by
Ramsey items 18, 58, and 60 with the pre-primed flow occurring “before
flow is restricted through 50.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner further finds that
the limitation in claim 28 “wherein said pre-primed flow maintains said
7
Appeal 2014-009498
Application 11/762,179
control valve in said closed position” (Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.)) is met
by Ramsey as follows:
wherein the pre-primed flow (before the flow is restricted
through 50) maintains a control valve (12, 62, 66) in the closed
position (see column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 33 where
when 66 opens the liquid flow supplied thereby interrupting or
stopping flow through 18, 58 and 60 causing 12 to close.
Id.; see also Ans. 6.
This finding has the same flaw as the Examiner’s findings in
connection with claim 14. When either valve 62 or valve 66 is open, there is
flow through 18, 58 and 60, and the main control valve 12 opens. Ramsey,
4:24—33. When both valves 62 and 66 are closed, flow through 58 and 60
stops and flow through 56 (in a downward direction in the orientation of
Figure 2) builds pressure to close the main control valve 12. Thus, when
valve 66 opens, the main control valve 12 opens, the opposite of the
Examiner’s finding. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence does
not support the Examiner’s finding.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6—9,
11, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 28, and 30 are reversed.
REVERSED
8