Ex Parte Gibb et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2014

12416320 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JOHN GIBB and DOUGLAS R. DOLE
________________

Appeal 2012-004950
Application 12/416,320
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004950
Application 12/416,320

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-17. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter is directed to “flanged mechanical pipe
couplings that have segments maintained in spaced apart relation using
spacers.” Spec., para. [0002]. Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A pipe coupling positionable between facing end portions
of a pair of pipe elements for securing said pipe elements to one
another in end-to-end relation, wherein said end portion of one
of said pipe elements has an outer surface of substantially
cylindrical profile and said other pipe element has an end flange
mounted thereon, said coupling comprising:
a plurality of coupling segments, each of said coupling
segments having an arcuate surface adapted to interface with
the outer surface of said one pipe element and a flange
positioned in spaced apart relation to said arcuate surface, said
flange being engagable with said end flange of said other pipe
element;
each of said coupling segments further having connection
members for adjustably connecting one coupling segment to
another, said connection members being adjustably tightenable
for drawing said arcuate surfaces of said segments into
engagement with the outer surface of said one pipe element and
said flanges into alignment with said end flange;
a spacer positioned between two of said coupling
segments, said spacer for supporting said arcuate surfaces in
spaced apart relation sufficient to allow said one pipe element
to be inserted between said coupling segments.

Appeal 2012-004950
Application 12/416,320

3
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Krooss1 US 2,473,102 Jun 14, 1949
Krooss2 US 2,752,173 Jun 26, 1956
Blakeley US 4,391,458 Jul. 5, 1983
Wolfsdorf US 6,312,025 B1 Nov. 6, 2001

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Krooss ‘173. Ans. 4.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krooss ‘173 and Wolfsdorf. Ans. 8.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Krooss ‘173 and Blakeley. Ans. 9.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krooss ‘173 and Krooss ‘102. Ans. 12.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-
9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,401,819. Ans. 15.
Claims 1 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5,
and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,654,587. Ans. 19.
ANALYSIS
The rejections based on
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 6-17 on the basis of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting. Ans. 14-23. Appellants do not

1 Hereinafter “Krooss ‘102.”
2 Hereinafter “Krooss ‘173.”
Appeal 2012-004950
Application 12/416,320

4
dispute these rejections but instead contend that “Applicants agree to file a
terminal disclaimer obviating this rejection upon the indication of allowable
subject matter in the application.” App. Br. 4. As Appellants have not filed
any terminal disclaimers nor have Appellants provided any explanation as to
why the Examiner’s rejections are in error, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 2, and 6-17 for the reasons provided. See Ans. 14-23.
The rejection of claims 1 and 2
as being anticipated by Krooss ‘173
Appellants argue independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 together.
App. Br. 5-9. We select claim 1 for review with claim 2 standing or falling
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claim 1 is directed to a coupling for securing a pair of pipe elements
in end-to-end relation. One pipe element is described as having a
“substantially cylindrical profile” while the other pipe element is described
as having “an end flange mounted thereon.” Claim 1 includes the limitation
that the coupling has “a plurality of coupling segments” with “each of said
coupling segments having an arcuate surface” that interface with the outer
surface of one pipe element. Claim 1 also includes the limitation that each
coupling segment further has “a flange positioned in spaced apart relation to
said arcuate surface” and that this flange is “engagable with said end flange
of said other pipe element.” Hence, there is described a coupling for
securing a non-flanged pipe element to a flanged pipe element as illustrated
in Appellants’ figure 25 and described at Paragraph [0059] of Appellants’
original Specification dated April 1, 2009. See also App. Br. 2.
The Examiner provides an annotated version of the figures of Krooss
‘173 to further identify the various components relied on for this anticipation
App
App

rejec
Figu
flang
refer
Engi
as to
“flan
radia
struc
desc
App
Exam
he ha
defin
simp
This
Exam
Kroo

eal 2012-0
lication 12
tion. Ans
re 3 of Kro
e.” App.
ence certa
neers (pre
what a fla
ge” as def
lly outwar
ture is illu
ribed there
ellants also
iner, it is
s identifie
ition of a
The Exa
lified repr
“simplifie
iner’s int
ss ‘173.

04950
/416,320
. 5, 7. App
oss ‘173 t
Br. 6. In d
in portions
viously pr
nged pipe
ined in the
dly from t
strated at
in in parag
indicate t
“requested
d as a flan
flange.” A
miner resp
esentation
d represen
erpretation
ellants co
o which th
efining th
of Marks
ovided to t
joint entai
Handboo
he end of
300 in Figu
raph 0059
hat despit
that the E
ge corresp
pp. Br. 7.
onds by p
of [a] cros
tation,” as
of a “flan
5
ntend that
e Examin
e claim ter
’ Standard
he Examin
ls. App. B
k “compri
a pipe” an
re 25 of t
.” App. B
e the anno
xaminer e
onds to th

roviding a
s-section
shown be
ge” and “a
“[t]he arc
er points i
m “flange
Handboo
er) which
r. 6. App
ses an ann
d that “[t]h
he instant
r. 7; see a
tation prov
xplain ho
e common
further “[h
of Krooss
low, bette
rcuate sur
uate struct
s clearly n
,” Appella
k for Mech
supplies m
ellants con
ulus exten
is same an
application
lso Reply
ided by th
w the struc
ly accepte
]and draw
‘173.” An
r illustrate
face” as ta
ure in
ot a
nts
anical
ore detai
tend that
ding
nular
and
Br. 2.
e
ture whic
d
n
s. 25.
s the
ught by
l
a
h
Appeal 2012-004950
Application 12/416,320

6
Hand drawn simplified representation
of a cross-section of Krooss ‘173
In addressing this “simplified representation,” the Examiner finds that
“any coupling segment having a ‘C’ shaped cross-section can meet the noted
limitations, e.g., the indicated arcuate surface B is in spaced apart relation to
indicated flange A and the indicated arcuate surface A is in spaced apart
relation to indicated flange B.” Ans. 24. The Examiner also finds that “[i]t
is well understood that the usual and customary definition of a ‘flange’ is
simply a rib or rim that extends inwardly or outwardly from an object for
strength, for guiding, or for attachment to another object.” Ans. 24; see also
Ans. 27.
Regarding the referenced Handbook, the Examiner makes the
distinction that claim 1 is directed to a coupling for securing pipe together
and is not directed to a flanged pipe. Ans. 25, 26. More specifically, the
Examiner finds that the supplied “reference is drawn to ‘Flanged Pipe Joints’
and . . . not segmented pipe couplings analogous to the instant invention.”
Ans. 27. Further, perhaps to alleviate any confusion as to what item 300 is
part of (i.e., the pipe or the coupling), Appellants clearly state that “[f]lange
300 is appended to the coupling 294” and not to the pipe. App. Br. 7
referencing Spec., para. [0059].
In addressing Appellants’ understanding that the term “flange” is an
annulus that extends radially “outwardly” (App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 3), the
Examiner contends that this understanding is not supported by Appellants’
Specification nor Paragraph [0059] thereof. Ans. 26. The Examiner notes
that Paragraph [0059] of Appellants’ Specification discusses “coupling
segments 296 and 298, each of which has a radially extending flange 300 on
Appeal 2012-004950
Application 12/416,320

7
one side and a[n] arcuate surface 302 on the opposite side.” See also Reply
Br. 3. Appellants’ Specification is silent as to the radial direction item 300
extends (i.e., “outwardly”). Ans. 26. Because Appellants’ Specification
does not provide any direction for the flange to extend, “the examiner has
used the usual and customary meaning of a ‘flange’” as provided supra (i.e.,
“a rib or rim that extends inwardly or outwardly”). Ans. 27; see also Ans.
24.
Appellants contend that they are “entitled to be [their] own
lexicographer” (App. Br. 8), which the Examiner does not deny (Ans. 26-
27). Hence, Appellants contend that the Examiner “must be guided by
applicants’ disclosure, which clearly shows a traditional flange, comprising a
radially extending annulus, attached to their coupling.” App. Br. 8. Even
employing this definition, which is silent as to any particular radial direction,
Appellants do not make clear how the “flanges” identified by the Examiner
in the provided “simplified representation” (supra) fail to meet this
definition or how the structure disclosed in Krooss ‘173 fails to comport “in
anyway [sic.] with the commonly accepted definition of a flange, or the
definition as used in the application.” App. Br. 8. More succinctly,
Appellants fail to indicate how the Examiner’s identified flange on the
coupler of Krooss ‘173 fails to be “engageable [sic.]” with any flange
mounted on a pipe end as claimed. See Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated by
Krooss ‘173.
Appeal 2012-004950
Application 12/416,320

8
The rejection of: (a) claims 3-5 as being unpatentable over Krooss ‘173 and
Wolfsdorf; (b) claim 6 as being unpatentable over Krooss ‘173 and
Blakeley; and, (c) claims 15-17 as being unpatentable over Krooss ‘173 and
Krooss ‘102
Appellants do not address any failings in the Examiner’s additional
reliance on the art referenced in the above rejections but instead, Appellants
contend that the additionally cited art “does not cure the defect of Krooss
‘173” because each of these claims “recite a flange.” App. Br. 9-11.
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive and accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-6 and 15-17 as stated by the Examiner.
Ans. 8-14.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-17 are 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

hh