11266973 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2011)

Ex Parte Franson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 31, 2011

11266973 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2011)

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. 11/266,973 11/04/2005 Scott Thomas Franson 6065-000022/DVA 1870 27572 7590 05/31/2011 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte SCOTT T. FRANSON, KENNETH G. VOS, THOMAS E. WINEBRENNER, and ANDREW T. THOMPSON ____________________ Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JAMESON LEE, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 2 A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Viking Corporation (“TVC”), the real party in interest, appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 35-63. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. References Relied on by the Examiner L.E. Campbell et al. (“Campbell”) 3,195,647 July 20, 1965 Johnson 4,715,447 Dec. 29, 1987 Polan et al. (“Polan”) 5,080,176 Jan. 14, 1992 Meyer et al. (“Meyer”) 5,584,344 Dec. 17, 1996 The Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 35-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Johnson. The Examiner rejected claims 46-51 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Campbell. The Examiner rejected claims 43-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and Meyer. The Examiner rejected claims 52-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell and Polan. The Examiner rejected claims 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell. The Examiner rejected claims 59 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell and Johnson. The Examiner rejected claims 60 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell, Johnson, and Polan. App App extin inclu defle and a sprin conf dispe extin TVC (repr illus emb inven depi in a n 26 w again supp Figu defle in Fi adjac sprin eal 2009-0 lication 11 The inve guishing s des a sprin ctor, a def trigger as kler head iguration f nsing fire guishing f ’s Figure oduced rig trates an odiment of tion. The cts a sprink on-activa As show hich recei st a fluid ort assemb re 2) and d ctor attach gure) whic ent outlet kler in its 15218 /266,973 ntion relat ystem for kler head lector sup sembly w into a or luid. 2 ht) the figure ler head ted or clos n in the fi ves a comp inlet 28. A ly 74 whi ownwardl ment arm h forms p 30 of orifi un-activat The es to a com a building having a b port assem hich is act ed state. gure, sprin ression m lso conta ch include y extendin s are conn art of defle ce 26. Tr ed state. (S 3 Invention pact spri . (Spec. 2 ody with bly, a mov ivated to p kler body ember 98 ined within s an annul g deflecto ected to a ctor assem igger asem ee genera nkler used :2-4.) Gen a central o eable com osition the 20 include for compr orifice 2 ar ring 78 r attachme deflector p bly 22 an bly 34 op lly Spec. p in an auto erally, the rifice, a m pression m compone s a cavity essing a se 6 is a defle (unnumbe nt arms 8 late 76 (un d is positi erates to m p. 9-10.) matic fire sprinkler oveable ember, nts of the or orifice al 36 ctor red in 0. The numbered oned aintain th e App App suffi such 20. throu exten fluid impa a pre eal 2009-0 lication 11 When a cient heat, as lever a Compressi gh a centr d beneath directed t cts the def selected p Claim 35 35. A a and an o a said orif 15218 /266,973 fuisible lin it melts. A rms 44, fal on membe al opening the deflec hrough ori lector whi attern. (Se is reprod sprinkler sprinkler b utlet; deflector s ice; k portion t that poi l away fro compo config (repro below suppo drops Deflec deflec a posi from s r 98 sidab in deflect tor. Fire e fice 26 an ch distribu e id. at pp uced below head for a ody havin upport ass 4 46 of the t nt, other p m the spin nents to a uration su duced left right). In rt assembl down and tor arms 8 tor plate 7 tion space prinkler b ly moves or 76 to xtinguish d out outle tes the flu . 11-13) (App. B fire exting g an orific embly at l rigger asse ortions of kler head ssume an ch as that ) and Figu that confi y 74 inclu rests on re 0 of the a 6 in d ody ing t 30 id in r. 34 Claim uishing sy e, said ori east partia mbly is ex the trigger and allow operationa shown in F re 15 (repr guration, d ding annul taining rin ssembly su s App’x.) stem com fice having lly positio posed to assembly its l igure 14 oduced eflector ar ring 78 g 92. pport : prising: an inlet ned within , Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 5 a movable deflector supported by said deflector support assembly and positioned in proximity to said outlet; a sealing member positioned within said orifice, said sealing member releasably sealing said orifice; a movable compression member slidably movable through said movable deflector, said compression member releasably securing said sealing member in a closed position; and a trigger assembly carried by said sprinkler body, said trigger assembly configured to maintain said movable deflector and said movable compression member in a closed position, and when said trigger assembly is activated, said trigger assembly permits said movable deflector to move away from said sprinkler body and said movable compression member to slide through said movable deflector. B. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner correctly determine that Johnson discloses a sprinkler head having “a moveable compression member slidably moveable through” a moveable deflector? 2. Did the Examiner correctly determine that Campbell discloses a sprinkler head having an internal orifice where a deflector of the sprinkler head in its retracted position is positioned externally to the orifice? 3. Did the Examiner correctly determine that Campbell discloses a sprinkler head having an annular ring and two attachment arms that are “depending from” the ring? C. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS The Examiner rejected claims 35-42 as anticipated by Johnson and claims 43-45 as unpatentable over Johnson and Meyer. The Examiner rejected claims 46-51 and 63 as anticipated by Campbell and claims 52-62 Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 6 over Campbell taken alone or together with one or more of Polan and Johnson. The Rejections Based on Johnson Anticipation - Claims 35-42 Claim 35 is an independent claim. The dispute centers on the claim feature of “a movable compression member slidably movable through said movable deflector”. According to the Examiner, that feature is disclosed in Johnson. In particular, the Examiner found that Johnson discloses a “movable compression member 54” that is slidably movable through deflector 26. (Ans. 3:13-14) TVC argues that Johnson’s component 54 is not a “compression member.” (App. Br. 15:10-12.) TVA also argues that component 54 is fixedly attached to the deflector plate 28 of deflector 26 and is thus not “slidably movable through” the deflector. (Id. at 14:17-19.) We agree with TVC. In the context of TVC’s specification, a “compression member” is a structure that operates to supply a compression force to a component (Spec. 5:28-31), and as set forth in the claim, that component is a “sealing member” positioned in a fluid orifice within the sprinkler to thereby secure the sealing member in a closed position in the orifice. Johnson’s component 54 is termed a “strut” and operates simply as a support member for deflector plate 28. (Johnson 5:51-57.) Johnson does describe a sealing ring 36, however, there is no indication that strut 54 provides a compression force to, or performs any other operation on, the sealing ring. The Examiner does not meaningfully explain why Johnson’s strut 54 is reasonably viewed as a “compression member.” App App “con 26. cons betw its in hous eal 2009-0 lication 11 Furtherm nected to” (Johnson 5 tituting a m een the str Johnson vention in Figure 1 inventio As show ing 44 wh 15218 /266,973 ore, John the deflec :55-57.) J eans of a ut and def ’s Figure 1 a closed, depicts a n. n in the fi ich contain son disclo tor plate 2 ohnson do ttachment lector asse , reproduc non-activa sprinkler a gure above s, among 7 ses that the 8 which fo es not des which allo mbly. ed below, ted state: ssembly a , the sprin other struc bottom e rms part o cribe that ws for slid shows a s ccording t kler assem tures, flan nd 62 of st f deflecto connection able moti prinkler as o Johnson bly includ ge 42, def rut 54 is r assembly as on sembly of ’s es a lector App App assem a val fusib heat assem fluid sprin the d Figu and they num strut chan 10 is prov (Id.) John strut conn defle its cl strut throu claim eal 2009-0 lication 11 bly 26, a ve closure le materia fusible po bly to as is directed Johnson kler assem eflector as re 3) along 54 are drop are suppo bered) by s. Fluid th nel within directed o ide a desir As is evid son’s Figu s 52 and 5 ected relat ctor 26 wh osed and o 52 nor str gh” the de 35. 15218 /266,973 nd support means 11 l.” (Johns rtions of th sume an op through t ’s Figure 3 bly in its sembly 26 with its s ped down rted on fla enlarged h en passing body mem ver the de ed spray p ent from res 1 and 4 maintain ionship w en the spr pen positi ut 54 is “s flector as struts 52 0 which in on 7:8-47. e valve cl erable ori he assemb (reproduc open, oper (not num upport stru ward such nge 42 (als ead portio through a ber 12 of flector ass attern for a comparis 3, the lowe the same ith respect inkler is in ons. Thus lidably mo required b 8 and 54. E cludes com ) Upon ap osure mea entation in ly. (Id. at ed below able confi bered in ts 52 that o not ns of the central sprinkler embly to the fluid. ion of r ends of fixed to the each of , neither veable y xtending b ponents plication ns melt ca which a f 10:36-11 on right) i guration. eneath ho formed fro of sufficie using the s ire extingu :7.) llustrates t In that con using 44 is m “heat nt heat, the prinkler ishing he figuration , Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 9 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses all elements of the claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). On this record, the Examiner has not adequately identified where Johnson disclosures a compression member that is slidably moveable through a moveable deflector. For the foregoing reasons we do not sustain the rejection of claim 35 as anticipated by Johnson. Claims 36-42 are dependent, either directly or indirectly, on claim 35 and include all the limiations of that claim. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 36-42 as anticipated by Johnson. Obviousness - Claims 43-45 The Examiner rejected claims 43-45 over Johnson and Meyer. Claims 43-45 are ultimately dependent on claim 35. The Examiner does not rely on Meyer to make up for the above-discussed features of claim 35 that are lacking in Johnson. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 43-45 over Johnson and Meyer. The Rejections Based on Campbell Anticipation - Claims 46-51 Claim 46 is an independent claim and was rejected as anticipated by Campbell. The claim is directed to a sprinkler head for a fire extinguishing system and includes a sprinkler body having an orifice with an inlet and an outlet. The sprinkler also includes a deflector and a deflector support assembly. The dispute centers on the following feature (App. Br. 36 Claims App’x.): App App non- of th sprin Exam defle are p Figu Exam sprin with Exam defle whic Acco inclu when 1), th bein that TVC fluid eal 2009-0 lication 11 at least a said orif deflector Thus, cl activated c e deflector kler body iner cont ctor and d ositioned re 1 is repr iner foun kler head an orifice iner also ctor 20 an h includes rding to th de portion deflector at is suffi g external We do n it is the def ’s specific impacting 15218 /266,973 portion o ice when s being ext aim 46 req onfigurati support a while the ends that C eflector su as required oduced on d that Cam including 12. (Ans. found that d a deflect arms 40. e Examin s that are 20 is retra cient to me to” the ori ot agree w lector tha ation, a “d the deflec f said defle aid deflec ernal to sa uires that on (i.e., w ssembly is deflector i ampbell d pport asse . Campbe the right. pbell disc a sprinkler 3:19-20.) Campell d or support (Id. at 3:2 er, becaus outside of cted (as in et the abo fice. (Id. a ith the Ex t must be e eflector” i tor in a pr 10 ctor supp tor is in sa id orifice… when the s hen the de positione tself remai iscloses a mbly that ll’s The loses a body The iscloses a assembly 1-22.) e arms 40 orifice 12 Figure ve-quoted t 7:4-6.) aminer. A xternal to s a structu eselected ort assemb id retracte prinkler h flector is “ d within th ns externa claim feat t the outse the orifice re that ope distributio ly being lo d position ead is in it retracted” e orifice o l to the or ure of the t, the claim . In the c rates to di n pattern. cated in with said s closed, ), a portion f the ifice. The “deflector s require ontext of stribute (Spec. Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 11 2:14-15.) Campbell’s element 20 is called a “deflector” (Campbell 2:25) and operates to disperse fluid (id. at 1:31-34). Arms 40 form portions on which the deflector is “supported.” (Id. at 2:43-45.) Thus, arms 40 do not consistute a “deflector” but are instead part of the deflector support assembly. Deflector 20 corresponds to the claimed deflector and is contained within orifice 12 (termed a “cavity” in Campbell) when the deflector is in a retracted position. (Id. at 2:42-43.) Deflector 20 is thus not “external” to the orifice in that retracted position. Moreover, even if arms 40 do form part of a deflector, TVC’s claim 46 requires that the deflector as a whole must be external to the orifice when the deflector is in its retracted position (“said deflector being external to said orifice.”). That requrement is not met simply because portions of arms 40 are external to orifice 12. Campbell’s component 20, i.e., the “deflector,” is clearly positioned within orifice 12 when the deflector is in a retracted position. Campbell thus does not disclose that the entirety of a deflector is external to the orifice when the deflector is retracted. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 46 as anticipated by Campbell. Claims 47-51 are ultimately dependent claim 46 and include all the limiations of that claim. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 47-51 as anticipated by Campbell. Anticipation – Claim 63 Claim 63 is an independent claim and was rejected as anticipated by Campbell. Claim 63 is drawn to a sprinkler head for a fire extinguishing system and includes a a sprinkler body, a deflector, and a deflector support assembly. The claim further recites that (App. Br. 40 Claims App’x.): Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 12 said deflector support assembly comprises an annular ring and at least two attachment arms depending from said annular ring and being attached to said deflector[.] At issue is the requirement that the deflector support assembly forms an annular ring with two attachment arms “depending from” the ring. The Examiner found that Campbell discloses a deflector support assembly with an annular ring at component 38 and “arms 24 that depend on the ring 38 to activate them,” which allegedly constitutes the structures required by claim 63. (Ans. 7:20-22.) TVC challenges that finding. Campbell’s component 38 is disclosed as a “fusible link” which resides at the base of a sprinkler head and, when subjected to sufficient heat, melts to allow the sprinkler head to enter into an activated configuration. (Campbell 3:38-40.) Campell’s components 24 are disclosed as “rods” which support deflector 20. (Id. at 2:25-27.) Even assuming that fusible link 38 constitutes an annular ring and rods 24 consitute attachment arms, the Examiner has misconstrued a term of claim 63. The claim requires that the arms be “depending from” the annular ring and not that the arms “depend on” the ring for activation as the Examiner stated. The ordinary meaning of “depend” as it is used in the claim is “to hang down.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 310 (10th ed. 1996). Thus, the recitation in claim 38 of attachment arms that are “depending from” an annular ring requires that the arms are connected to and hanging down from the ring. App App essen that for a corre “dep a com anoth comp down Figu show conn link down Cam were claim is ex retra 46, w eal 2009-0 lication 11 Evidentl tially “to rods 24 “d ctivation. ct interpre ending fro ponent “ er structu onent is a from the re 2 is repr s that ther ection bet 38, much l from the We do n pbell. Obvious Claims 5 rejected o s 52-56 th ternal to th cted positi e reject th 15218 /266,973 y, the Exa rely upon” epend on” That, how tation of t m.” As di depending re means t rranged so structure. oduced on e is no dir ween rods ess that th link. ot sustain ness - Cla 2-56 are u ver Camp e Examin e orifice o on. For th e Examin miner adv in asserti fusible lin ever, is no he claim te scussed ab from” a hat the as to han Campbel the right ect physic 24 and fu e rods han the rejecti ims 52-56 ltimately bell and P er relied o f a sprink e same rea er’s conten 13 ances a me ng k 38 t a rm ove, g l’s and al sible g on of claim dependent olan. As w n Campbe ler body w sons give tion in co aning of “ 63 as ant on claim 4 ith claim ll as disclo hen the de n above w nnection w depend” a icipated b 6. Claim 46, in reje sing a def flector is i ith respect ith claims s y 52-56 cting lector that n a to claim 52-56. Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 14 The Examiner does not rely on Polan to make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Campbell. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 52-56 over Campbell and Polan. Obviousness - Claims 57-62 Claim 57 is an independent claim and is directed to a method of assembling a sprinkler head. The claim includes steps of providing a sprinkler body having a orifice, providing a deflector, and providing a deflector support assembly. The claim also requires that the deflector is moveable to a retracted position in which the deflector is “adjacent and external to” an outlet of the sprinkler body orifice. (App. Br. 38 Claims App’x.) Apparently relying on Campbell’s Figure 2, the Examiner found that “bottom enlarged heads” of rods 24 are shown external to the orifice or cavity 12 containing deflector 20. (Ans. 5:11-14.) The Examiner stated that it would have been obvious as a matter of “design choice” to make those portions of the rods 24 integral, and thus a part of, deflector 20. (Id.) The Examiner determined that that “design choice” modification is adequate to account for a deflector positioned externally to the orifice as set forth in TVC’s claim 57. TVC disputes the Examiner’s determination. We are not in agreement with the Examiner. Even assuming that the “bottom enlarged heads” of rods 24 could be made integral with deflector 20, claim 57 requires that the deflector in its entirety be “external to the outlet” when the deflector is in its retracted position. Thus, it is not suffcient that only a portion of Campbell’s deflector, i.e., the “bottom enlarged heads,” be external to orifice 12 when the deflector is retracted. Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 15 We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 57 as unpatentable over Campbell. The Examiner rejected claim 58 as unpatentable over Campbell. Claim 58 is dependent on, and includes all the limitations of, claim 57. We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 58. Claims 59-62 are ultimately dependent on claim 57. The Examiner rejected claims 59-62 over Campbell along with one or more of Polan and Johnson. The Examiner does not rely on Polan or Johnson to make up the above-noted deficiencies with respect to Campbell. We do not sustain the rejections of claims 59-62. D. CONCLUSION 1. The Examiner incorrectly determined that Johnson discloses a sprinkler head having “a moveable compression member slidably moveable through” a moveable deflector. 2. The Examiner incorrectly determined that Campbell discloses a sprinkler head having an internal orifice where a deflector of the sprinkler head in its retracted position is positioned externally to the orifice. 3. The Examiner incorrectly determined that Campbell discloses a sprinkler head having an annular ring and two attachment arms that are “depending from” the ring. E. ORDER The rejection of claims 35-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Johnson is reversed. The rejection of claims 46-51 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Campbell is reversed. Appeal 2009-015218 Application 11/266,973 16 The rejection of claims 43-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and Meyer is reversed. The rejection of claims 52-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell and Polan is reversed. The rejection of claims 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell is reversed. The rejection of claims 59 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell and Johnson is reversed. The rejection of claims 60 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell, Johnson, and Polan is reversed. REVERSED