Ex Parte Koop

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14179753 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/179,753
75576 7590
Johnson Controls, Inc.
c/o Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269
02/13/2014
04/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edward N. Koop
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
142654.0lOSUS
(JOCI:0433)
CONFIRMATION NO.
9118
EXAMINER
PANCHOLI, VISHAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@fyiplaw.com
powell@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD N. KOOP
Appeal2017-003819
Application 14/179,753
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-003819
Application 14/179,753
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claims are directed generally to "a zone balancing damper
for an HVAC system." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A damper comprising:
a tubular duct;
a circular blade disposed within the tubular duct; and
a shaft disposed within the tubular duct, wherein the shaft
extends through a hole in the circular blade.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ludeman
Royalty
Zelczer
Jaromin
us 3,627,261
us 5,465,756
us 6,105,927
US 2011/0036438 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Dec. 14, 1971
Nov. 14, 1995
Aug. 22, 2000
Feb. 17, 2011
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zelczer. Final Act. 2.
Claims 2--4 and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zelczer and Royalty. Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2017-003819
Application 14/179,753
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zelczer and Jaromin. Final Act. 4.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zelczer and Ludeman. Final Act. 5.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zelczer, Royalty, and Jaromin. Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
All of the Examiner's rejections are based at least in part upon the
finding that Zelczer teaches the claimed shaft extending through the damper
blade as found in each of independent claims 1, 12, and 13. According to
the Examiner, Zelczer teaches this limitation because its shaft 158 extends
through plate 121 via its insertion into slot 157. See, e.g., Ans. 8. Our
analysis focuses on the interpretation of the recitation of "extends through"
as found in the claims.
The Examiner's finding relies on an interpretation whereby any
penetration in any direction of a shaft that results in some part of the shaft
residing on each side of the damper plate meets this limitation. Id. We do
not agree with this interpretation. Appellant is correct that "there is a
difference between a shaft that extends through a hole and a bushing that
extends into and is fitted into a slot," which is what is taught in Zelczer.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant is correct that Zelczer teaches a different shaft 139
that "extends through" opening 145, which is more akin to the proper
interpretation as found in the claims, and so Zelczer indicates appreciation of
this difference. Id.
The claimed recitation that the shaft "extends through" a hole in the
blade indicates a direction of the shaft because the shaft "extends" along its
3
Appeal2017-003819
Application 14/179,753
longitudinal axis. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification,
which shows that a shaft that "extends through" the blade passes through it
at some angle greater than zero degrees. See, e.g., Figs. 1, 7, ,r 26 ("Shaft
106 extends from bearing 108 through blade 104 and coupling 112 .... ").
As such, Zelczer's bushing 158 does not extend through plate 121 via its
insertion into slot 157, but merely extends into the plate. Additionally, the
insertion angle is at zero degrees, which also would not fall within our
interpretation of the phrase. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of any of the claims due to this improper interpretation of Zelczer.
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, the Examiner misinterprets the
claim language relating to the open and closed positions. The Examiner
reads the claim language such that the rotation of the plate 180 degrees is not
associated with the claimed open and closed positions. Ans. 10. As
properly read, the claimed open and closed positions are linked to the 0- and
180-degree recitations, such that the plate rotates from a closed, 0-degree
position, to an open, 180-degree position. The Examiner's interpretation
ignores this link and merely states that Zelczer is capable of rotating 180
degrees while also moving through both an open and closed position.
Appellant is correct that "Zelczer will return the vane to its original position
with 180 degrees of rotation," as opposed to what is required by the claim
language at issue. Appeal Br. 12. As such, and for this additional reason,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
4