Ex Parte Hillesheim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

10557985 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 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.
10/557,985 09/06/2006 Thorsten Hillesheim 49833 6451
1609 7590 11/29/2012
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
PRICE, CRAIG JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2012 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 THORSTEN HILLESHEIM and PETER BRUCK
____________________

Appeal 2010-002878
Application 10/557,985
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002878
Application 10/557,985

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 10, 11, and 13-21. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-9 and 12 were canceled. Id.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal:
10. A valve, comprising:
a valve housing including a pump port, a use
port and a tank port;
a control piston guided for longitudinal
movement within said valve housing for selective
fluid connection of said pump port to said use port
and of said use port to said tank port, said control
piston having a connecting channel;
a pilot valve in said valve housing having a
pilot chamber and a pilot valve part guided for
longitudinal movement in said pilot chamber, said
connecting channel connecting at least one of said
ports with said pilot chamber in fluid
communication;
a first throttle in said connecting channel in
a direction of and upstream of said pilot chamber;
and
a guide in said connecting channel in a
direction of and upstream of said pilot chamber,
said guide having at least one deflection channel
extending obliquely to said connecting channel to
deflect fluid flowing through said connecting
channel and said guide away from said pilot valve
part.

Appeal 2010-002878
Application 10/557,985

3
THE REJECTION
Claims 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harms (US 6,286,535 B1; iss. Sep. 11, 2001) and Park
(US 6,364,430 B1; iss. Apr. 2, 2002). Ans. 3.1
ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 10, the Examiner found Harms discloses a valve
comprising each of the claimed limitations except for "a guide . . . having at
least one deflection channel extending obliquely to the connecting channel
to deflect fluid flowing through the connecting channel and the guide away
from the pilot valve part." Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found Park discloses a
solenoid valve (citing figs. 13, 15A, 15B) with a guide 520 (piston) having
at least one deflection channel 522 (branch passage) extending obliquely to a
connecting channel to deflect fluid flowing through the connecting channel
and guide away from the pilot valve part. Ans. 4 (see also Park, col. 11, ll.
55-63; fig. 15B). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an atomizer as taught by Park in
Harms' valve to have a guide as claimed, to prevent water hammering. Ans.
5 (citing Park, col. 12, ll. 10-15).
Appellants contend that neither Harms nor Park discloses a deflection
channel extending obliquely to the connecting channel to deflect fluid
flowing through the connecting channel and guide away from the pilot valve
part. Br. 4-5. Appellants contend that Harms' valve "only has a control flow
restriction orifice or throttle 144 that is only axially directed for conveying
fluid directly toward the pilot valve part formed by ball valve 228." Br. 6.

1 We treat this rejection as pertaining to only claims 10, 11, and 13-21, as
indicated by Appellants.
Appeal 2010-002878
Application 10/557,985

4
Regarding Park, Appellants contend that in the embodiment shown in Figure
13, the fluid passes through invariable orifice 311 in magnetic core 306 to
enter the valve (seat) receiving space 106a (citing fig. 3) to act directly on
plunger 105. Br. 6. Appellants contend that the fluid exiting Park's branch
passages 522 and piston 520 only directly enters the fluid pressurizing
chamber 112 (citing figs. 3, 3a) between piston 520 and core 306, before
passing through the axially oriented orifice 311 and being directed axially
directly toward plunger 105 forming its valve part. Id. Appellants contend
that Park's branch passages do not correspond to Harms' throttle 144,
because "they are not directly exposed to plunger 105 or its chamber 106a,
and do not convey fluid directly into the chamber 106a to act on plunger
105." Br. 6-7. Appellants contend that because only Park's orifice 311
passes fluid directly into chamber 106a about its plunger 105, only orifice
311 corresponds to Harms' throttle 144. Br. 7. Appellants further contend
that Park's branch passages 522 do not direct fluid away from plunger 105
because branch passage 522 are used in combination with orifice 311 that
directs the flow at the plunger 105. Id.
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. Park states "in a slip control
mode, fluid supplied through the branch passages 522 of the piston 520 is
directed to the invariable orifice through the fluid grooves 521." See col. 11,
l. 66 – col. 12, l. 2. As such, the branch passages 522 are designed to direct
fluid to the fluid grooves 521, through which the fluid is directed to the
invariable orifice 311. The fluid that passes through branch passages 522
must pass through the invariable orifice 311. Referring also to Figure 13 of
Park, it can be visualized that when piston 520 was used in the valve shown,
fluid would pass through branch passages 522 and then be directed by the
Appeal 2010-002878
Application 10/557,985

5
invariable orifice 311 axially directly toward the plunger 105, as indicated
by the arrow. Park does not disclose that the orientation of the branch
passages 522 changes the direction of flow of the fluid that exits from
invariable orifice 311. Rather, Park, like Harms, discloses flowing fluid
axially from an orifice directly toward a valve ball. The Examiner did not
make a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that either
Harms or Park discloses "a guide . . . having at least one deflection channel
extending obliquely to said connecting channel to deflect fluid flowing
through said connecting channel and said guide away from said pilot valve
part," as claimed. As such, the Examiner has not articulated an adequate
reason supported by a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined the teachings of Harms and Park, or shown
that the combination would result in the claimed valve. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 10, and claims 11 and 13-21, which depend
from claim 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 11, and 13-21 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED

mls