Ex Parte Henriksson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2012

10592601 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

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.
10/592,601 11/21/2006 Stig Roland Henriksson 06634/LH 2320
1933 7590 12/12/2012
HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC
220 Fifth Avenue
16TH Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10001-7708
EXAMINER
CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2012 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 STIG ROLAND HENRIKSSON
____________

Appeal 2010-008596
Application 10/592,601
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, REMY J. VANOPHEM, and
GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Stig Roland Henriksson (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-008596
Application 10/592,601

2
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to “a hydraulic hammer having a
distribution valve with an improved tightness for a more efficient hammer
action.” Spec. 1, ll. 29-31. Claim 1 (the sole independent claim),
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A hydraulic hammer comprising:
a housing with a cylinder bore and a guide
sleeve for a working implement,
a reciprocating hammer piston reciprocated
in the cylinder bore, and
a distribution valve for directing pressure
fluid to the hammer piston,
wherein said distribution valve comprises:
a valve bore with a pressure fluid inlet
communicating with the pressure fluid source and
a pressure fluid outlet communicating with one
drive side of the hammer piston, and
a valve element sealingly guided in the
valve bore for controlling a flow of pressure fluid
between said inlet and said outlet,
wherein said distribution valve includes:
a primary seal means including an axially
facing valve seat in said valve bore and a contact
surface on said valve element for sealing contact
with said valve seat, and
a secondary seal means including a
cylindrical envelope surface on said valve element
for clearance sealing relative to said valve bore,
and
wherein said primary and secondary seal
means are arranged in series to seal off pressure
fluid communication between said inlet and said
outlet.

Appeal 2010-008596
Application 10/592,601

3
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Arndt US 5,038,668 Aug. 13, 1991
Giordano US 5,549,031 Aug. 27, 1996

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Giordano in view of Arndt.

OPINION

With regard to claim 1, the Examiner has found that Giordano
discloses the claimed subject matter except that “it does not clearly show a
secondary seal means (valve outer surface).” However, the Examiner has
taken the position that “Arndt teaches a distribution valve (20) including a
primary seal means (valve seat) and a secondary seal means (valve outer
surface) as shown in Figure 1 wherein the primary seal means and the
secondary seal means are arranged in series and capable of sealing off fluid
communication ports.” Ans. 3. The Examiner then concludes it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify Giordano by
replacing the distribution valve with Arndt’s distribution valve in order to
maintain a sealing effect on the fluid communication ports.” Id.
Among the arguments advanced by the Appellant is that in Giordano
“there is no ‘flow of fluid pressure between inlet duct (10) and outlet (18)’”
(Reply Br. 3), because duct 18 is used to control the position of shuttle 5 by
acting on “the shank 5a of the shuttle 5” (Reply Br. 4). The Appellant also
argues that Giordano “provides no support” for the Examiner’s assertion (on
Appeal 2010-008596
Application 10/592,601

4
page 5 of the Answer) that “valve element 5 is sealingly guided in the bore
(24), sealing with the large diameter body portion in contact with valve seat
(6) and controlling the flow of fluid pressure between the inlet duct (10) and
outlet (18).” Reply Br. 4. Moreover, the Appellant asserts that “Giordano
contains no written disclosure of sealing contact between the shuttle 5 and
the cap 6” (Reply Br. 4-5), and “it simply cannot be determined from the
drawings of Giordano that the shuttle 5 has a contact surface for sealing
contact with a valve seat on the cap 6” (Reply Br. 5).
Among the components recited in claim 1 is a distribution valve
comprising a valve bore and a valve element “sealingly guided in the valve
bore ,” “a primary seal means including an axially facing valve seat in said
valve bore and a contact surface on said valve element for sealing contact
with said valve seat,” and “a secondary seal means including a cylindrical
envelope surface on said valve element for sealing relative to said valve
bore” (all emphasis added). As set forth above, the Examiner has concluded
that this structure is disclosed in Giordano, except for “clearly” showing the
required secondary sealing means. However, our review of Giordano
confirms not only that there is no disclosure of a cylindrically oriented
secondary seal means between the valve element and the valve bore, as
admitted by the Examiner, but also that there is no disclosure of the axially
oriented “primary seal means,” which the Examiner stated was present in
Giordano. The only mention in Giordano that any component has a sealing
relationship with any other component is “a shank 5a sealingly sliding
within cap 6” (Col. 2, l. 20), which is referring to a piston-like element 5a
mounted in an opening in cap 6, upon the head surface 19 on which
pressurized fluid acts through switch duct 18 to drive shuttle 5 to the left (as
Appeal 2010-008596
Application 10/592,601

5
shown in Fig. 2) at the end of the descending stroke of piston 4. See col. 3,
ll. 38-44. Thus, there is no support for the Examiner’s conclusion that
shuttle 5 is “sealingly guided” in the valve bore, that the large body portion
of shuttle 5 is in “sealing” contact with cap 6, or that the cylindrical
envelope is in “sealing” relation with the valve bore.
Nor are such teachings present in the distribution valve described in
Arndt. While Arndt specifically discloses seal means provided between the
walls of gas chamber 5 and percussion piston 1 and annular piston 8 (see, for
example, col. 6, ll. 10-13), no sealing relationships are disclosed between the
cylindrical slide 20 and the bore 19 in which it moves, and between the end
face 19b of the bore and the contact surface on slide 20.
In view of the above-described deficiencies, even considering,
arguendo, that it would have been obvious to replace the distribution valve
of Giordano with that of Arndt, as asserted by the Examiner, the resulting
structure would not meet the terms of claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-7 as being unpatentable over Giordano in
view of Arndt is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh