Ex Parte Kormanik

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

12858642 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/858,642 08/18/2010
26096 7590 08/08/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P,C
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Riordan Kormanik
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
223; 67417-062 PUSl 6297
EXAMINER
MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER RIORDAN KORMANIK
Appeal2014-007172
Application 12/858,642
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christopher Riordan Kormanik (Appellant1) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-19. 2 We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ross Operating Valve
Company. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2 and 20 are canceled. August 15, 2013 Amendment.
Appeal2014-007172
Application 12/858,642
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellant's invention "relates generally to an internally vented
valve." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 9 (Claims
Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A valve comprising:
a valve body including a main passage defining a first
volume and a second volume; and
a valve spool moveable relative to the valve body, the
valve spool including a central vent passage capable of fluid
communication with each of the first volume and the second
volume, wherein air flows between the first volume and the
second volume through the central vent passage as the valve
spool moves relative to the valve body to change the valve
between an actuated position and a non-actuated position,
wherein the air in the first volume and the second volume is
sealed within the valve body,
wherein the valve spool includes a first vent passage and
a second vent passage that are substantially transverse to the
central vent passage and in fluid communication with the
central vent passage, the first vent passage is capable of fluid
communication with the first volume and the second vent
passage is capable of fluid communication with the second
volume.
App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Additionally, each of
independent claims 9 and 13-15 is directed to a valve and contains similar
limitations, including the limitation "wherein the air in the first volume and
the second volume is sealed within the valve body." App. Br. 10-13.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
2
Appeal2014-007172
Application 12/858,642
Moren US 4,557,609
Bonacorsi US 4,995,421
Weiler US 5,699,829
Seid US 6,209,563 Bl
REJECTIONS
Dec. 10, 1985
Feb.26, 1991
Dec. 23, 1997
Apr. 3, 2001
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14--16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bonacorsi.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14--16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonacorsi.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14--16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonacorsi and Seid.
Claims 8, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bonacorsi (alternatively over Bonacorsi in view of Seid)
and Moren.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bonacorsi (alternatively over Bonacorsi in view of Seid) and Weiler.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection Based on Bonacorsi
The Examiner finds that Bonacorsi discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 1. Final Act. 2--4. More specifically, the Examiner finds
that Bonacorsi discloses, inter alia, a valve defining a first volume ("the
3
Appeal2014-007172
Application 12/858,642
space above seal 38 of upper land 32")3 and a second volume ("the reduced-
diameter portion of the bore, labeled as 192 in FIG 8, not including [exhaust
port groove] 22"), and:
wherein the air in the first volume and second volume is sealed
within the valve body (the second volume is beneath seal 3 8 of
land 36, just before spool reaches the position of FIG 3, due to
the second volume being read as only the small-diameter
portion 192 of the bore, as seen in FIG 8).
Id. at 2-3.
Appellant argues that "[Bonacorsi] does not disclose a valve where air
in a first volume and a second volume is sealed within a valve body" and
"air in the second volume can escape through the cross passage 186 as the
valve spool 30 move[s] downwardly." App. Br. 5.
The Examiner answers that:
[Appellant's] argument appears to ignore the examiner's
mapping of the claimed second volume to the space 192, not
including space 22, which space 192 is sealed as sealing ring 38
contacts the reduced-diameter portion of the main bore 192 just
before the valve is fully seated in the position of FIG 3.
Ans. 11. Continuing, the Examiner asserts that "there is nothing in the claim
which requires the second volume to be ... sealed within the valve body
simultaneously with the second volume being in communication with the
central vent passage and the first volume." Id.
Appellant replies that "[ r ]egardless of the position of the valve spool,
[Bonacorsi] does not disclose that the air in the first volume and the second
3 Parentheticals refer to the Examiner's description of Bonacorsi. See Final
Act. 2--4.
4
Appeal2014-007172
Application 12/858,642
volume is sealed within the valve body." Reply Br. 1. Continuing,
Appellant argues that:
As the valve spool moves into the space 192, this air
must vent somewhere. As the axial bore 180 does not extend
into the area of the valve spool 30, air cannot flow through the
axial bore 180. The only option is that the air flow[s] through
the opening in the housing 10 that receives the projection 40.
Appellant notes there are no seals near the projection 40 to
prevent the flow of air out of the opening that receives the
projection 40. The air in the volumes are not sealed as claimed.
Id. at 1-2.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Although we do not
agree with Appellant's assertion that air does not flow through Bonacorsi's
axial bore 180---we note that Bonacorsi discloses relieving pressure that
would otherwise build up as land 3 6 enters recess 192 by porting such
pressure through cross-passage 186, bore 180, and cross-passage 188 into
the space above valve spool 30 and the atmosphere (see Bonacorsi, 4:7-
19}-nonetheless, we agree with Appellant that neither Bonacorsi' s first or
second volumes, as defined by the Examiner, are sealed within the valve
body. As noted above, Bonacorsi discloses that the first volume is in fluid
communication with the atmosphere. See Bonacorsi 4: 14--1 7.
Additionally, even if we adopt the Examiner's proposition that the
claims only require temporary sealing of the first and second volumes (see
Ans. 11), the second volume (i.e., Bonacorsi's recess 192) is not sealed
because, as noted by Appellant (see Reply Br. 2), no seals are positioned
near or within opening 42. Furthermore, cross-passages 186, 188 and axial
bore 180 fluidly connect recess 192 to the atmosphere. See Bonacorsi 4:7-
19. Thus, the Examiner has not established that Bonacorsi discloses first
5
Appeal2014-007172
Application 12/858,642
and second volumes that are sealed within a valve body, as called for by
claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Each of
independent claims 14 and 15 requires first and second volumes sealed
within a valve body, and we also reverse the rejections of those claims.
Because each of claims 3-7, 10-12, 16, 18, and 19 depends, directly or
indirectly, from one of independent claims 1 and 15, we likewise reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3-7, 10-12, 16, 18, and 19.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Bonacorsi
The Examiner finds that Bonacorsi discloses a valve as described
above, and further determines that because it "would have been obvious to
use non-zero manufacturing tolerances in order to decrease manufacturing
costs," "Bonacorsi's seal 38 of lower land 36 incidentally seals against the
small diameter part 192 of the bore before the bottom of lower land 36
reaches the bottom of small diameter part 192 of the bore." Final Act. 8.
The Examiner's modification of Bonacorsi does not remedy the
aforementioned errors for claims 1, 14, and 15, and we, therefore, reverse
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14--16, 18, and 19 as being
unpatentable over Bonacorsi.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Bonacorsi and Seid
The Examiner finds that "Bonacorsi discloses the invention as
claimed with arguable exception to the second volume being sealed." Id.
The Examiner finds that "Seid teaches that it was known to place a check
valve (30) in a similar exhaust port (28) of a similar ... valve," and that
6
Appeal2014-007172
Application 12/858,642
"[t]o prevent unintentional reverse flow and the entry of debris into
Bonacorsi's exhaust port 24, it would have been obvious to place a check
valve therein." Id. Thus, the Examiner concludes, "because of the check
valve's cracking pressure, the second volume would be sealed at least when
Bonacorsi's valve is not moving and is in the position of FIG 2." Id. The
Examiner elaborates that "[ t ]he examiner ... is proposing using a check
valve in Bonacorsi's device, in the same orientation as taught by Seid" and
that "Bonacorsi's second chamber, even if read to include Bonacorsi's space
22, would be sealed from the outside when the obvious check valve is closed
(i.e., when there is no flow out of Bonacorsi's exhaust 24, such as in the
position of FIG 2)." Ans. 13.
The Examiner's application of Bonacorsi and Seid does not remedy
the aforementioned deficiencies of Bonacorsi for claims 1, 14, and 15-
namely, that opening 42, and, therefore, the second volume, remains
unsealed even if a check valve is added to exhaust port 24 as proposed by
the Examiner. See, e.g., Bonacorsi, Fig. 2. Additionally, as noted above,
Bonacorsi discloses that the first volume is in fluid communication with the
atmosphere. See Bonacorsi, 4:14--17. We, therefore, reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14--16, 18, and 19 as being unpatentable
over Bonacorsi and Seid.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Bonacorsi and Moren, and, Alternatively,
Also Based on Seid
Claim 8 depends indirectly from claim 1, and claim 17 depends
directly from claim 15. The Examiner's use of Bonacorsi, Moren, and Seid
7
Appeal2014-007172
Application 12/858,642
does not remedy the aforementioned errors for claims 1 and 15, and we,
therefore, reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 1 7.
Independent claim 9 also requires first and second volumes sealed
within a valve body. App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner's use
of Bonacorsi, Moren, and Seid does not remedy the aforementioned errors
for claim 1, and we reverse the rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Bonacorsi and Weiler, and, Alternatively,
Also Based on Seid
Independent claim 13 requires first and second volumes sealed within
a valve body. App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner's use of
Bonacorsi, Weiler, and Seid does not remedy the aforementioned errors for
claim 1, and we reverse the rejection of claim 13 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-19 is reversed.
REVERSED
8