Ex Parte Lloyd

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2014

12253527 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2014)

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.
12/253,527 10/17/2008 Jeffrey M. Lloyd MERIT070197PUSP 9528
113600 7590 12/04/2014
Brooks Kushman P.C. / Meritor
Twenty Second Floor
1000 Town Center
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
SCHWARTZ, CHRISTOPHER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2014 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 JEFFREY M. LLOYD
____________________

Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jeffrey M. Lloyd (“Appellant”) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1–24. Appeal Br. 5. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a crossover valve for an air
suspension system, such as that used in off-road vehicles. See, e.g., Spec. 1,
paras. 2 and 3. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below.
1. A suspension comprising:
a valve block comprising a manifold, a crossover valve,
and first and second sets of valves;
a first set of springs in fluid communication with said
first set of valves;
a second set of springs in fluid communication with said
second set of valves; and
said crossover valve being movable between an open
position to allow fluid communication to each of said first and
said second sets of springs and a closed position that separates
said first set of springs from said second set of springs.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brookes (US 2007/0200304 A1, published Aug. 30, 2007)
in view of Bounds (US 2008/0290617 A1, published Nov. 27, 2008) and
Buma (US 4,836,511, issued June 6, 1989). Answer 2–4.

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claims 1–24, the Examiner finds that Brookes shows, inter
alia, a suspension comprising: manifold 312; first set of front springs 302,
304; first set of valves 328A, 328B; second set of springs 302, 304; second
App
App

set o
2–3
302,
328D
cross
relie
relie

1 Bro
mem
reser
Broo
eal 2012-0
lication 12
f valves 32
(citing Bro
Figure 4
Figure 4
304, “first
, “crossov
The Exa
-over valv
s on Buma
s on Boun

okes’s ref
ber, 322 a
voir, and 3
kes, paras
10872
/253,527
8C, 328D
okes, para
of Brooke
depicts B
set of val
er valve”
miner furt
e 322 and
for “show
ds for show

ers to 312
s valve ass
14 as valv
. 32–34, an
; crossove
. 35 and F
s is reprod
rookes’s “
ves” 328A
322, and “
her finds t
any menti
ing such ‘
ing a “va

as valve b
embly, 32
e actuator
d 39.
3
r valve 32
ig. 4).
uced belo
manifold”
, 328B, “se
reservoir”
hat Brooke
on of the l
cross over
lve block-
lock, 302
8 as transf
for an ass
2; and rese
w:
312, front
cond set o
318.
s lacks “th
imitation
’ valves .
manifold a
as gas spri
er valve a
ociated, b
rvoir 318
and rear “
f valves”
e specific
‘manifold,
. . at 40 or
ssembly 1
ng, 304 as
ssembly, 3
ut unseen,
.1 Answer

springs”
328C,
s of the
’” but
42” and
08, 110,
damping
18 as
valve.

Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

4
112 in which the valves 114A-114G are arranged.” See Answer 3 (citing
Bounds, para. 19).
In contesting the rejection to claims 1–24, Appellant presents several
arguments, which we address separately, below. Additionally, and for the
purpose of providing clarity in our Decision, we adopt the headings used by
Appellant in the Arguments Section of the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 5–
9.
A. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–13, 17–20, and 24
Appellant has not presented separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 2, 7, 9–11, and 20, which depend from claim 1, apart from their
arguments for independent claim 1, and has not presented arguments for the
patentability of claims 13, 17–19, and 24, which depend from claim 12,
apart from their arguments for independent claim 12. See Appeal. Br. 5–9;
see also Reply Br. 2–7. Furthermore, Appellant argues independent claims
1 and 12 together and as part of a group. See Appeal Br. 5–7. Therefore, we
select claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9–13, 17–20, and 24, with claims 2, 7, 9–13, 17–
20, and 24 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(providing that “[w]hen multiple claims subject to the same ground of
rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may
select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal
as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the
basis of the selected claim alone.”)
In contesting the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that “none of
the references disclose or teach a valve block that comprises a manifold with
a crossover valve as claimed.” Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

5
that “Brookes does not disclose or teach providing a crossover valve in a
valve block as claimed. Buma does not disclose or teach the use of any type
of valve block. Bounds also does not disclose or teach providing a crossover
valve in a valve block as claimed.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 2–4.
In response, the Examiner correctly explains that “one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references.” Answer 4–5 (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Importantly, the Examiner does not rely on Brookes or Buma for
individually teaching “a crossover valve in a valve block.” See Answer 2–4.
Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely on Buma for teaching “the use of
any type of valve block.” See id. Instead, the Examiner determines that “to
have arranged the valves of Brookes, including the cross over valve 322,
into a valve block with a manifold, as taught by Bounds, would have been
obvious to consolidate and protect the valves into an integrated unity. This
could reduce costs/assembly times [and] make replacement of defective
valves easier.” Answer 4; see also Answer 6 (emphasis added). For these
reasons, Appellant’s argument that “none of the references disclose or teach
a valve block that comprises a manifold with a crossover valve as claimed”
does not indicate error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal Br. 6.
Furthermore, if Appellant’s argument is based on the understanding
that the prior art must include a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine the references, this argument is foreclosed by KSR International
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which the Court rejected the
rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

6
elements in order to show obviousness. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 415. In
KSR, the Court noted that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 401.
Finally, Appellant also argues that “Bounds teaches away from the
use of a crossover valve by using a valve block 110 with a fluid transfer
chamber that is directly connected to each spring assembly via an associated
spring valve to adjust or maintain height at one or more corners.” Appeal
Br. 7 (citing Bounds, paras. 22 and 26) (emphasis added); see also Reply Br.
4. Appellant further argues that “if one were to modify Brookes with the
teachings of Bounds, the result would not be a valve block and crossover
valve as defined in the claims.” Appeal Br. 7.
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, that is, as a
whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention.
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir.
1983). A prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative, however,
does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives unless
such disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution
claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the present case, we are not persuaded that “Bounds teaches away
from a crossover valve” simply “by using a valve block 110 with a fluid
transfer chamber that is directly connected to each spring assembly,” as
Appellant asserts. See Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). In particular, we do
not find that the cited portion of Bounds “criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages” the use of the claimed crossover valve.
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

7
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and Buma, and, therefore, sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, and for the reasons discussed, supra, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7, 9–13, 17–20, and 24, which stand or
fall with claim 1.
B. Claim 3
In contesting the rejection of claim 3, Appellant relies on the same
arguments presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. For the same reasons
discussed supra in connection with claim 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant also argues that neither Brookes, Bounds, nor Buma teaches
or discloses “front right and front left valves are in the valve block with the
manifold and crossover valve,” as recited in claim 3. Id. Appellant further
argues that “Bounds discloses a manifold with front right and left valves
[and that t]his configuration clearly teaches away from using a crossover
valve as claimed.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added).
As discussed above, these contentions of non-obviousness are not
persuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see also KSR Int’l Co., 550
U.S. at 415.
As similarly discussed in connection with claim 1, above, the
Examiner does not find that Brookes, Bounds, or Buma individually teaches
or discloses “front right and front left valves [that] are in the valve block
with the manifold and crossover valve.” As such, Appellant’s argument
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that it “would
have been obvious to consolidate and protect the valves into an integrated
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

8
unit” for the purpose of “reduc[ing] costs/assembly times [and to] make
replacement of defective valves easier.” Answer 4; see also Answer 6.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that Bounds “teaches away”
from using a crossover valve, we are not persuaded. As we discussed in
relation to claim 1, we do not see how Bounds disclosure of “a manifold
with front right and left valves” criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the use of the claimed crossover valve. See In re Fulton, 391
F.3d at 1201.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and Buma, and, therefore, sustain the
rejection of claim 3.
C. Claim 4
In contesting the rejection of claim 4, Appellant relies on the same
arguments presented for claim 3. Appeal Br. 7. For the same reasons
discussed supra in connection with claim 3, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant also argues that neither Brookes, Bounds, nor Buma teaches
or discloses “a valve block that includes a set of four valves for four springs
as well as a crossover valve,” as recited in claim 4. See id. at 7–8.
Appellant further argues that “Bounds discloses a manifold with front/rear
right and left valves that are individually controlled [and that t]his
configuration clearly teaches away from using a crossover valve as
claimed.” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

9
As discussed above, these contentions of non-obviousness are not
persuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see also KSR Int’l Co., 550
U.S. at 415.
As similarly discussed with claims 1 and 3, above, the Examiner does
not find that Brookes, Bounds, or Buma individually teaches or discloses “a
valve block that includes a set of four valves for four springs as well as a
crossover valve.” As such, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s determination that it “would have been obvious to
consolidate and protect the valves into an integrated unit” for the purpose of
“reduc[ing] costs/assembly times [and to] make replacement of defective
valves easier.” Answer 4; see also Answer 6.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that Bounds “teaches away”
from using a crossover valve, we are not persuaded. As we discussed in
relation to claims 1 and 3, we do not see how Bounds disclosure of “a
manifold with front/rear right and left valves that are individually
controlled” criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of the
claimed crossover valve. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and Buma, and, therefore, sustain the
rejection of claim 4.
D. Claims 5 and 15
In contesting the rejection of claims 5 and 15, Appellant relies on the
same arguments presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. For the same reasons
discussed supra in connection with claim 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

10
Appellant also argues that “there is nothing found in Brookes to
suggest that the valves [3]28A-D are normally closed and crossover valve
322 is normally open as claimed.” Id. Appellant further argues that “the
examiner has not provided any specific arguments to indicate where the
references disclose or teach the normal positions of these valves.” Id.
In supporting the rejection to the claimed crossover valve operation,
the Examiner relies on paragraph 35 of Brookes, which discloses, in part,
During cross-linked operation, valve assembly 322 is closed to
prevent communication between the front and rear gas springs
of the vehicle. As a result, both valve assemblies 328A and
328D as well as valve assemblies 328C and 328D can be open
to thereby permit cross-articulation of the vehicle suspension
system.
Answer 5 (citing Brookes, para. 35) (emphasis added).
We further note that Figure 5 of Brookes is an “exemplary
diagrammatic representation of a method of operating” Brookes’s vehicle
suspension system and that Brookes further discloses:
At decision box 404, a determination is made as to whether the
user or operator has activated the cross-flow operation of the
suspension system, such as by performing an input action . . . If
no activation signal has been received, a NO determination is
made at decision box 404 and the vehicle suspension system
operates in a normal mode, as indicated by box 406.
Brookes paras. 16 and 38 (referencing Brookes, Fig. 5); see also Brookes
paras. 39 and 40 (emphasis added).
We further note that Brookes also discloses, “cross-flow operation is
discontinued by closing the transfer valve or valves, as indicated by box
420.” Id. at para. 40 (referencing Brookes, Fig. 5); see also id. at paras. 41
and 42. Importantly, and as mentioned earlier, Brookes refers to the
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

11
construed “first and second set of valves” 328A, 328B, 328C, and 328D as
“transfer valve assemblies.” Id. at para. 39.
Accordingly, Brookes teaches “first set of valves” 328A, 328B and
“second set of valves” 328C, 328D as being closed during normal mode, or
when cross-flow operation is discontinued. See id. at paras. 39–42.
Additionally, as the “crossover valve” 322 is closed during “cross-linked”
operation, it logically follows that “crossover valve” 322 is open during
normal mode. See id. at para. 35. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s
rejection, and find that Brookes discloses a suspension system where, during
normal mode, “crossover valve” 322 is normally open and “first set of
valves” 328A, 328B and “second set of valves” 328C, 328D are normally
closed. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “there
is nothing found in Brookes to suggest that the valves [3]28A-D are
normally closed and crossover valve 322 is normally open as claimed.”
Appeal Br. 8.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and Buma, and, therefore, sustain the
rejection of claims 5 and 15.
E. Claims 6 and 16
In contesting the rejection of claims 6 and 16, Appellant relies on the
same arguments presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. For the same reasons
discussed supra in connection with claim 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner “has not provided any
indication of where any of the references disclose or teach” “only activating
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

12
the [crossover] valve to move to the closed position when in a four wheel
drive low mode as claimed.” Id.
In apparent response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner explains
that “[t]he limitations in the remaining claims are capable of being met
dependent upon the suspension system requirements desired (i.e. ride height,
hard vs. soft ride etc.) and as readily apparent from the collective drawings
and teachings of the publications applied above.” Answer 6
In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the
examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.104(c)(2). When a reference is complex or shows or describes
inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied
on must be designated as nearly as practicable. Id. The pertinence of each
reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim
specified. Id.
In the present case, it is unclear to us from the record how the
teachings and disclosures of Brookes, Bounds, and Buma are being applied
by the Examiner to reject claims 6 and 16. In particular, the Examiner does
not make any specific finding or any determination of obviousness with
respect to the claim limitation “only closing the crossover valve when in a
four wheel drive low mode,” as recited in claim 16 and as similarly recited
in claim 6. As such, the Examiner’s rejection is not supported by sufficient
evidence or reasoning.
For the foregoing reason, we reverse the rejection of claims 6 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and
Buma.

Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

13
F. Claim 8
In contesting the rejection of claim 8, Appellant relies on the same
arguments presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. For the same reasons
discussed supra in connection with claim 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant also argues that neither Brookes, Bounds, nor Buma teaches
or discloses “a valve block monolithic structure that includes a crossover
valve,” as recited in claim 8. Id. at 8–9. Appellant further argues that “[t]he
system of Buma does not include any type of valve block and Bounds
teaches away from using a crossover valve.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
As discussed above, these contentions of non-obviousness are not
persuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see also KSR Int’l Co., 550
U.S. at 415.
As similarly discussed in connection with claims 1, 3, and 4, above,
the Examiner does not find that Brookes, Bounds, or Buma individually
teaches or discloses “a valve block monolithic structure that includes a
crossover valve.” We further note that Appellant has not provided a
definition for “monolithic” and the Specification is void of any reference to
the term, let alone a lexicographic definition. As such, Appellant’s
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that it
“would have been obvious to consolidate and protect the valves into an
integrated unit” for the purpose of “reduc[ing] costs/assembly times [and to]
make replacement of defective valves easier.” Answer 4; see also Answer 6.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that Bounds “teaches away”
from using a crossover valve, we are not persuaded. As we discussed in
relation to claims 1, 3, and 4, we do not see how Bounds criticizes,
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

14
discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of a crossover valve. See In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and Buma, and, therefore, sustain the
rejection of claim 8.
G. Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Appellant relies on the same arguments
presented for claims 3 and 4. Appeal Br. 9. For the same reasons discussed
supra in connection with claims 3 and 4, we also sustain the rejection of
claim 14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brookes,
Bounds, and Buma.
H. Claim 21
In contesting the rejection of claim 21, Appellant relies on the same
arguments presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. For the same reasons
discussed supra in connection with claim 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant also argues that “[n]one of the reference [sic] disclose or
teach a valve block that comprises a six valve, cross linked configuration,”
as recited in claim 21, and that “Bounds [instead] discloses a valve block
with seven valves.” See id. at 9. Appellant further argues that “Bounds
discloses a manifold with front/rear right and left valves that are individually
controlled [and that t]his configuration clearly teaches away from using a
crossover valve as claimed.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

15
As discussed above, these contentions of non-obviousness are not
persuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see also KSR Int’l Co., 550
U.S. at 415.
As similarly discussed in connection with claims 1, 3, 4, and 8, above,
the Examiner does not find that Brookes, Bounds, or Buma individually
teaches or discloses “a valve block that comprises a six valve, cross linked
configuration.” As such, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error
in the Examiner’s determination that it “would have been obvious to
consolidate and protect the valves into an integrated unit” for the purpose of
“reduc[ing] costs/assembly times [and to] make replacement of defective
valves easier.” Answer 4; see also Answer 6.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that Bounds “teaches away”
from using a crossover valve, we are not persuaded. As we discussed in
connection with claims 1, 3, 4, and 8, we do not see how Bounds disclosure
of “a manifold with front/rear right and left valves that are individually
controlled” criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of the
claimed crossover valve. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and Buma, and, therefore, sustain the
rejection of claim 21.
I. Claim 22
With respect to claim 22, Appellant relies on the same arguments
presented for claims 8 and 21. Appeal Br. 9. For the same reasons
discussed supra in connection with claims 8 and 21, we also sustain the
Appeal 2012-010872
Application 12/253,527

16
rejection of claim 22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Brookes, Bounds, and Buma.
J. Claim 23
With respect to claim 23, Appellant relies on the same arguments
presented for claims 1, 21, and 22. Appeal Br. 9. For the same reasons
discussed supra in connection with claims 1, 21, and 22, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Brookes, Bounds, and Buma.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and Buma
is affirmed. Furthermore, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Brookes, Bounds, and
Buma is reversed.
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-IN-PART

Klh