Ex Parte IlmonenDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 6, 200710875047 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 6, 2007) Copy Citation The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ROBERT IIMONEN ____________ Appeal 2007-1391 Application 10/875.047 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Decided: July 6, 2007 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and CHUNG K. PAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Primary Examiner’s refusal to allow claims 1 and 2. Claims 3 through 5, the other claims pending in the above-identified application, were indicated to be “allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.” (Answer 4). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appeal 2007-1391 Application 10/875.047 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal is directed to a check valve seal for a metal injecting molding machine or die casting machine. (Specification 1). The check valve seal “effectively seals the injection channel [of the valve] to prevent the backflow of the molten metal into the supply cylinder [of the valve] during the injection stroke.” (Specification 3). The check valve seal is a ring having a groove in its forward face, which upon receiving molten metal, forces an outer circumferential portion of the ring to expand in a radial direction to provide a seal between the ring and a molding machine. (Specification 4). Further details of the appeal subject matter are recited in representative claim 1 reproduced below: 1. A seal for a check valve of a molding machine, said seal comprising a ring having a rear surface engageable with a surface of said valve to block flow of injection material into an [sic, a] melt passageway and a groove interior of a circumferential surface of said ring and extending from a forward surface of said valve [sic, ring] toward said rear surface. The Examiner has relied upon the following sole prior art reference as evidence of unpatentability: Gatti US 6,585,001 B2 Jul. 1, 2003 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gatti. (Answer 4). ISSUE Has the Examiner demonstrated that Gatti describes a groove interior of a circumferential surface of a seal ring extending from a forward surface of the valve toward the rear surface within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)? 2 Appeal 2007-1391 Application 10/875.047 RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS 1. Gatti describes a check valve useful for plastic extruding systems (cols. 1 and 2). 2. Gatti’s check valve has a sliding ring having apertures 31 through which resin flows (col. 5, ll. 19-21). 3. Gatti’s apertures 31 are arranged at an angle of between 15 to 30 degrees from the vertical so that “the flushing characteristics of side aperture valves can be achieved while still maintaining all of the advantages of standard forward-facing apertures.” (col. 5, ll. 20-24). ANALYSIS To establish anticipation within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a single prior art reference must teach either expressly or inherently each and every limitation recited in the claims on appeal. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Examiner has relied on apertures 31 of the ring shape seal illustrated in Gatti as corresponding to the claimed grooves. (Answer 4-6). The Appellant contends that apertures 31 are not grooves and are not located in the interior of the circumerential surface of the ring, extending from the forward face to the rear surface. (Br. 13-15). The dispositive question is, therefore, whether the Examiner has demonstrated that Gatti’s apertures correspond to the “groove interior of a circumferential surface of said [seal] ring and extending from a forward surface of said valve [sic., ring] toward said rear surface” recited in claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). On this record, we answer this question in the negative. 3 Appeal 2007-1391 Application 10/875.047 As correctly pointed out by the Appellant, the term “groove” recited in claim 1 does not include Gatti’s apertures. (Br. 15). The channel or depression in a surface referred to in the Brief is not a hole or an aperture. This interpretation is supported by the dictionaries relied upon by the Appellant at page 15 of the Brief and is consistent with the application drawings and the written description in the Specification. Moreover, Gatti’s apertures are not shown to be in the “interior of a circumferential surface of said ring…extending from a forward surface of said valve [sic., ring] toward said rear surface” as required by claim 1. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Gatti’s apertures correspond to the claimed grooves within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 2 under § 102(b). REVERSED sld/ls HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEM, LTD CO/AMC INTELLECTURAL PROPERTY GRP 500 QUEEN ST. SOUTH BOLTON, ON L7E 5S5 CANADA 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation