Ex Parte Gilpatrick

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13918701 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
13/918,701 06/14/2013 Richard J. Gilpatrick 016831-0454
PAT1421USCNT
2357
88759 7590 10/03/2017
Fnlev Rr T arHner T T P
EXAMINER
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
ZOLLINGER, NATHAN C
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
ipdocketing @ foley. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD J. GILPATRICK
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard J. Gilpatrick (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 7—10, 13, 14, 17, and
18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Briggs & Stratton Corporation as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 6, and 19 are cancelled, and claims 5,11, 12, 15, 16, and 20 are
withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br. 8.
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
INVENTION
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A water spraying system comprising:
an engine;
a pump driven by the engine, the pump including a pump inlet
configured to be fluidly coupled to a water source and a pump outlet
providing water at an increased water pressure;
a sprayer fluidly coupled to the pump outlet, the sprayer
including a flow restriction valve and a trigger for manipulating the
flow restriction valve so that movement of the trigger selectively opens
and closes the flow restriction valve;
a flow sensor configured to sense a flow of water into the pump;
a controller coupled to the flow sensor, wherein the controller is
configured to activate the pump by starting the engine when the sensed
flow is above a threshold flow, and wherein the controller is configured
to turn off the engine following a set time period of sensed flow below
the threshold flow; and
a user interface coupled to the controller, the user interface
configured to receive input for adjustment of the threshold flow.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sharp (US 2006/0245941 Al, published Nov.
2, 2006) and Mikami (JP 2005-087402, published Oct. 5, 2006).
2. Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sharp, Mikami, and Kaiser (US 2006/0027253 Al,
published Feb. 9, 2006) as evidenced by McKain (US 6,468,052 Bl, issued
Oct. 22, 2002).
2
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sharp, Mikami, Kaiser, and Brunelli (US 5,186,142, issued Feb. 16,
1993).
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1: Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 over Sharp and Mikami
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 14
As to claim 9, the Examiner finds that Sharp discloses a water
spraying system comprising controller 120 configured to “turn off the engine
after the sensed flow indicates a no-flow condition” (Final Act. 2—3 (citing
Sharp || 40-41)), but does not disclose that controller 120 is configured to
turn off the engine following a set time period, as claimed (id. at 3). The
Examiner finds that Mikami teaches a spraying system comprising controller
(stopping apparatus 10) for turning off an engine (engine 4) when a sensed
flow indicates a no-flow condition (via sensor 9) following a set time period.
Id. (citing Mikami 111).3 The Examiner finds that Mikami teaches using a
timer (timer 12) to delay a stop signal, which would prevent unnecessary
pump cycling and wear in situations where “the flow is merely temporarily
interrupted and no severe shortage/blockage is present.” Id.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Sharp to employ a controller/timer, as taught by Mikami, “to avoid
unnecessarily cycling [of] the pump and causing unneeded wear for
harmless instances when flow is momentarily interrupted and also allow the
engine/system to stabilize before shutting down.” Id. at 4.
3 The Examiner and Appellant cite to the English translation of Mikami. For
consistency, we also cite to the English translation.
3
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
Sharp discloses that “[t]he switch 44 automatically turns the motor 30
of the pressure washer 10 off under three conditions.” Sharp 140. “The
second condition when the motor 30 is turned off... is when no fluid 20, or
a negligible amount of fluid insufficient to counter the bias of the biasing
structure 82, is flowing through the inlet 12.” Id. 141.
Mikami discloses a pump idling prevention mechanism for a high-
pressure washer, including high-pressure pump 2, engine 4, sensor 9, and
stopping apparatus 10. See Mikami, Fig. 1. If the water supply to high-
pressure pump 2 becomes insufficient, sensor 9 detects a depleted condition
for high-pressure pump 2 and emits a depletion signal. Id. 110. Receiving
this depletion signal activates stopping apparatus 10, which stops engine 4 to
prevent idle rotation of high-pressure pump 2. Id. To stop engine 4, a timer
generates a time lag (time needed for engine 4 to cool down) between the
activation of sensor 9 and the stopping of engine 4. Id. 111. At this time,
engine 4 does not completely stop when stopping apparatus 10 turns off the
engine-stopping switch momentarily to halt engine 4. Id. ft is necessary to
keep the contact point in an off state for several seconds. Id.
Appellant contends that Mikami does not teach or suggest a controller
configured to turn off the engine following a set time period of a sensed
operating condition, as claimed. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant notes that
“[w]hen a controller is programmed to provide a new function, such
programming creates a new machine structure.” Id. at 11 (citing In re
Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Appellant contends that the
claimed controller can be considered to include an “on-delay timer,” where
an action is taken after a set amount of time, whereas, conversely, the
stopping timer in Mikami when the engine is currently running is an “off-
4
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
delay timer,” where an action is taken during a set amount of time and then
ceased after that amount of time. Id. Appellant contends that the claimed
operation of the controller is relevant to situations where the engine is
currently running, as it allows the engine to continue to run until the sensed
operating condition has existed for a set time period. Id. In contrast,
Appellant contends, in Mikami, only the operation of the stopping timer is
relevant to situations where the engine is currently running, as it maintains
an engine stop signal, in response to a depletion signal from the sensor, to
ensure stopping of a running engine “to prevent idle rotation of the high-
pressure pump.” Id. Appellant asserts that the distinction between taking
action following a set time period of a sensed operation condition, as
claimed, (i.e., delaying a signal with an on-delay timer), and taking action
for the duration of a set time period (i.e., maintaining a signal with an off-
delay timer) is a patentable structural difference between the claimed
controller and Mikami’s timer. Id. at 11—12.
Appellant contends that the difference in inputs for the claimed
controller and Mikami’s timers patentably distinguish the two. Appeal Br.
12. Particularly, for the claimed controller, the input is sensing a particular
operating condition for the duration of a set time period, whereas in Mikami,
the input is any duration of sensed flow below the threshold, which is
maintained by the stopping timer for a set time period, or ignored by an
override timer for a set time period. Id. Thus, Appellant contends, Mikami
does not disclose or suggest a controller that has an input of a particular
operating condition sensed for the duration of a set time period. Id.
The Examiner responds that the claimed “set time period” is an
inherent time lag that will be present based upon “basic telemetry delays”
5
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
between flow sensor activation and controller operation to shut off the
engine. Ans. 12. We agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in
the art “would regard the claimed ‘set time period’ as a time period beyond
those due to basic telemetry delays.” Reply Br. 3. We also agree that the
Examiner’s construction of “set time period” as any measureable time period
effectively reads this limitation out of the claims. Id. Accordingly, we agree
with Appellant that this construction is unreasonably broad, and thus,
improper. Id.
The Examiner also states, “Mikami teaches the result of shutting off
the engine after a given time period which is all that is required by the
limitation.” Ans. 10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant replies that the claimed
“controller’s contribution to the process of stopping the engine is to send the
signal to turn off the engine that starts the process,” and, accordingly, from
the claimed controller’s perspective, “turning off the engine occurs upon
sending a signal following a set time period of a sensed operating
condition.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellant.
The Examiner also states that “the distinction between ‘taking action
following a set time period of a sensed operation condition’ and ‘taking
action for the duration of a set time period’ is immaterial,” as neither the
claim limitations nor the disclosure prescribe a specific manner of taking
action. Ans. 10. Appellant replies that, according to the claim language,
“the sensor must sense a particular condition ‘for a set period of time’ before
the controller ‘tum[s] off the engine.’” Reply Br. 4—5. Appellant asserts
that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that the controller
does not take action to turn off the engine until the sensor has sensed the
6
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
particular condition for a set period of time,” and “[n]o action is taken by the
controller until the expiration of the set time period.” Id. at 5.
Appellant asserts that, in contrast, Mikami’s timer described in
paragraph 11 “maintains the signal to turn the engine-stopping switch in the
off state for a set time period to ensure sufficient time for the mechanical
components of the engine to come to a stop.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant also
contends that paragraph 11 of Mikami only discloses a single delay, not two
separate delays, as stated by the Examiner. Id.; see Ans. 11.
Appellant also contends that:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in
the claimed inventions, the controller does not initiate turning
off the engine until the sensor senses the operating condition
for a set period of time. In Mikami, the controller maintains
the turn off signal for a set period of time to ensure sufficient
time for the mechanical components of the engine to come to
a stop. In the claimed inventions, the time needed for the
mechanical components of the engine to come to a stop comes
after the set time period of the sensed operating condition.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added). These contentions are persuasive.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s rationale contradicts the
teachings of both Sharp and Mikami. Appeal Br. 13—14. Particularly,
Appellant contends that neither Sharp nor Mikami regards stopping a
running pressure washer in response to a lack of water supply as
“unnecessary.” Rather, Appellant contends, both references teach that
stopping a running pressure washer when an insufficient water supply is
present is necessary to avoid damage to the pressure washer system. Id. at
14 (citing Sharp 13; Mikami || 3, 10-11).
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. We note Sharp discloses that
“[s]uch operation of the motor . . . without the fluid being supplied to the
7
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
pressure washer (running the pump dry), can damage the system.” Sharp
13. As discussed above, Mikami sends a signal to stop the engine when a
depleted condition is detected by the sensor. See Mikami 13.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and
claims 10, 13, and 14 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Sharp and
Mikami.
Claims 17 and 18
Claim 17 calls for “a controller coupled to the flow sensor . . . wherein
the controller is configured to turn off the engine following a set time period
of sensed flow at a no-flow condition.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.
(emphasis added)). We do not sustain the rejection of claim 17, and
dependent claim 18, as unpatentable over Sharp and Mikami for the reasons
discussed above for claim 9.
Rejection 2: Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 over Sharp, Mikami, and Kaiser
as evidenced by McKain
Claim 1 calls for “a controller coupled to the flow sensor . . . wherein
the controller is configured to turn off the engine following a set time period
of sensed flow below the threshold flow.'’'’ Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.
(emphasis added)). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Kaiser and
McKain in relation to the limitation of “a user interface coupled to the
controller and configured to receive input for adjustment of the threshold
flow.” Final Act. 6.
The Examiner’s application of Kaiser and McKain to reject claim 1
fails to cure the deficiencies of Sharp and Mikami with regard to the claimed
controller. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 7, and 8 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Sharp,
Mikami, Kaiser, and McKain.
8
Appeal 2016-008283
Application 13/918,701
Rejection 3: Claim 3 over Sharp, Mikami, Kaiser, and Brunelli
The Examiner’s application of Brunelli to reject dependent claim 3
fails to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Sharp, Mikami,
Kaiser, and Brunelli.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 7—10, 13, 14, 17, and
18 is reversed.
REVERSED
9