Ex Parte HoffmanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201412005596 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/005,596 12/27/2007 Karl K. Hoffman 3697 2628 98580 7590 10/31/2014 Niro, Haller & Niro 181 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 EXAMINER RIVELL, JOHN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2014 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 KARL K. HOFFMAN 1 ________________ Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Karl K. Hoffman (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3 and 5–13. Claims 4 and 14 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Plitek LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 References The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Fuchs US 2,236,477 Mar. 25, 1941 Barthels US 4,134,535 Jan. 16, 1979 Pezzoli US 4,943,545 June 19, 1990 Graham US 6,056,439 May 2, 2000 Engel US 2004/0050437 A1 Mar. 18, 2004 Stotkiewitz WO 2004/039692 A1 May 13, 2004 Rejections The following rejections are before us: I. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Graham, Fuchs, Stotkiewitz, Pezzoli, and Barthels; II. Claims 2, 3, and 5–7, and 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Graham, Fuchs, Stotkiewitz, Pezzoli, Barthels, and Engels. III. Claims 1–3 and 5–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claimed Subject Matter Appellant’s substantive arguments only address the rejection of claim 1. See App. Br. 6, 10–11. Appellant adopts the arguments for the patentability of claim 1 for claims 2, 3, and 5–13 without further argument except for noting Engels fails to teach an interior valve (App. Br. 10), which the Examiner relied upon Graham to teach. Ans. 21. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claim 1 is reproduced below: Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 3 1. An interior-mounted pressure relief valve assembly comprising: a carrier structure including a pocket with a recessed bottom; an aperture in said recessed bottom; a filter medium in said recessed bottom covering said aperture; a pressure relief valve in said pocket mounted above said filter medium; wherein said carrier structure, said aperture, said filter medium and said pressure relief valve are all adapted to be mounted on an interior wall of a package with no external protrusion; wherein said gas venting valve contains food-grade oil; and wherein said filter medium is heat-staked to said recessed bottom. App. Br. 12, Claims Appendix. Issues on Appeal The issues presented on appeal are whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combined cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 reciting: i) “carrier structure, said aperture, said filter medium and said pressure relief valve are all adapted to be mounted on an interior wall of a package with no external protrusion;” ii) “said gas venting valve contains food-grade oil;” and iii) “said filter medium is heat-staked to said recessed bottom.” App. Br. 9–10 (emphasis omitted). In addition, Appellant challenges whether Pezzoli and Fuchs are analogous art. App. Br. 7–8. Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 4 OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions as to all rejections. We adopt as our own the findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 5–22 in the Answer to Appellant’s Brief. We further highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues the outlet ports of Graham are on a top wall structure that “protrudes outside the package” and the valve of Graham is an outlet port on the outside of the package, thus, Graham and Stotkiewitz cannot teach the claim limitations requiring the carrier structure, aperture, filter medium and pressure relief valve mounted on an interior wall of a package with no external protrusion. App. Br. 7, 11; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant misconstrues the combined teaches of Graham and Stotkiewitz. Appellant’s claims focus on allowing gases inside food packages to escape through a valve. The function of Graham is identical to that of Appellant’s claims, “[t]he inlet port of the valve is in communication with the interior of the package and the peripheral outlet ports are in communication with the ambient atmosphere, whereupon gas within the package is enabled to flow through the inlet port, under the disk member to cause at least a portion of the disk member to move off of the valve seat, and out through the outlet port to the ambient atmosphere.” Graham, Abstract; see also Graham, col. 1, ll. 9–10 (“products may be agricultural products, foodstuffs”); col. 3, ll. 44–45 (“The valve is arranged to allow the venting of gas within the interior of the package to the ambient atmosphere.”). Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 5 The Examiner relies upon Graham Figures 3 and 4. Ans. 5, 16. Figure 4 of Graham, set forth below, clearly shows that the outlet port of Graham is not outside the package (10): Figure 4 of Graham “is a view similar to FIG. 3, but showing the valve venting gas out of the package to the ambient atmosphere.” Col. 3, ll. 9–10. As seen in Figure 4 of Graham, the pressure relief valve (26), carrier structure (24), apertures beside cruciate arms (56) where air is flowing outward, and filter medium (30) are each mounted in the interior of package (10) with no external protrusions. The carrier structure (24) is mounted on the interior wall of the package (10). Graham alone teaches all claimed elements (carrier structure, aperture, filter medium and pressure relief valve) mounted in the interior of the package (10) such that there are no external protrusions of these particular claim elements as required by claim 1. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance upon the combination of Graham and Stotkiewitz as teaching an interior valve assembly with no external protrusions. See Ans. 16–17 (quoting Stotkiewitz, col. 1, ll. 24–28 (“there is a demand by packagers to dispose such overpressure valves on the inside of Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 6 a packaging container, so that the overpressure valve is not visually so striking and moreover is less susceptible to damage from outside”)). Appellant’s arguments that Graham’s valve is “inside-out” are not persuasive. See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s reliance upon Pezzoli as teaching the filter medium heat-staked to the recessed bottom by arguing that Pezzoli is not analogous art. App. Br. 7–8. The Examiner relies upon Pezzoli as teaching heat staking and responds that Pezzoli is pertinent to the particular problem at issue. Ans. 17–19. The Examiner also suggests Graham’s teachings related to heat sealing may suggest heat staking but it is unclear how heat sealing is related to heat staking. Ans. 18 (quoting Graham, col. 4, ll. 34–38 (“to form a ledge on which the filter disk 30 is disposed and secured, e.g., glued or heat sealed in place”)). We agree with the Examiner that Pezzoli is analogous art because it is concerned with the same problem Appellant was seeking to solve in mounting a filter medium. Ans. 17–18. We also find after adopting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “heat staking,” Graham in combination with Fuchs teaches heat staking the filter medium in the recessed bottom. In our determination, we will accord the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s Specification does not provide a meaning of the term “heat staking”; Appellant merely uses the terms “heat staking” and “heat sealing” in the same paragraphs to generally describe mounting structural components to one another. Spec. 4. Pezzoli provides a definition for “heat staking” as: Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 7 “[h]eat staking or fusing occurs when two materials are brought together in the presence of sufficient heat and pressure so as to form one material.” Col. 4, ll. 7–10. We find that this falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “heat staking.” Under this definition, Graham’s disclosure of heat sealing the filter disk (30) in place (col. 4, ll. 34–38) and Fuchs’ teaching a filter medium set in a recessed bottom (Ans. 6) combine to teach the “filter medium is heat-staked to said recessed bottom.” Claim 1. Although we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Pezzoli as teaching the general concept of heat staking a filter in place, the reliance on Pezzoli is unnecessary based upon the combined teachings of Graham and Fuchs. Appellant suggests Fuchs is not combinable with Graham because Fuchs “teaches a perforated metal plate or screen,” which is only for use “as some kind of water or fuel check valve that has no relation to out-gassing.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. Fuchs is analogous art and it is not limited to a liquid valve as Appellant alleges. Fuchs’ explains that valve seating may become “defective, and air or water leakage results involving considerable loss in efficiency.” Col. 1, ll. 43–45. Fuchs describes how “fluid enters the valve through the passages in the valve cup, and acts on the flexible valve member forcing it in as shown in the chain lines and fluid under pressure above the valve automatically returns the valve to its normal position.” Col. 2, ll. 18–23. Based upon the use of the term “fluid,” which is commonly understood to include gasses and liquids, and the teaching that the valve is for use with “air,” we find Appellant’s arguments related to Fuchs unpersuasive. Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 8 Appellant challenges the Examiner’s reliance on Barthels as teaching the use of food-grade oil with the valve. App. Br. 10; Ans. 20. Appellant argues Barthels does not teach the limitation based upon functionality not actually claimed. See App. Br. 10. We find these arguments unpersuasive because the claims simply require “gas venting valve contains food-grade oil.” Claim 1. The Examiner relies upon Barthels teaching of food grade oil (olive or peanut oil) in place of Graham’s teaching of the use of silicon oil on the valve. Ans. 20. We find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Barthels. Such reliance was, however, unnecessary because Graham’s disclosure of “a thin layer of a viscous material, e.g., silicone oil 28” on the valve would teach the use of a “food-grade oil” considering the silicon oil of Graham was meant to be used with “agricultural products” and “foodstuffs.” Graham, col. 1, ll. 9–10; col. 4, ll. 54–55; see also col. 5, ll. 4–6. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “food-grade oil,” Graham teaches using such oil on the valve for the same purpose as Appellant’s claims. We, therefore, conclude that Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner’s error and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant makes no new arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 3, 5–13 based upon the addition of Engels (see App. Br. 10–11), we thus affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth for claim 1. Finally, claims 1–3 and 5–8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Appeal 2012-008566 Application 12/005,596 9 Final Office Action, 2–3 (Aug. 23, 2011). Appellant does not identify any error in the Section 112 rejections. App. Br. 5–6. Accordingly, we affirm the final rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–8 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (2011). CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Graham, Fuchs, Stotkiewitz, Pezzoli, and Barthels is affirmed. The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–7, and 9–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Graham, Fuchs, Stotkiewitz, Pezzoli, Barthels, and Engels is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite is affirmed. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3 and 5––13. 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 kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation