Ex Parte Ilmonen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 6, 2007

10875047 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 6, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.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