Ex Parte MeansDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201713276824 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/276,824 10/19/2011 Stuart Means 4236-08301 8563 114378 7590 03/29/2017 TR ANF, International Tne EXAMINER Conley Rose, P.C. MA, KUN KAI 5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500 Plano, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STUART MEANS Appeal 2014-007014 Application 13/276,824 Technology Center 3700 Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant Stuart Means appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 9-201 mailed October 10, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The claimed invention relates generally to a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system that includes an electronic expansion value (EEV). Spec. 4. Figure 6 is reproduced below. 1 Claim 8 was previously canceled. Appeal Br. 5. Appeal 2014-007014 Application 13/276,824 6/7 Figure 6 is a schematic diagram of an EEV in an unrestricted state of operation. Spec. 114. The Specification explains: “The the [sic] motor 312 may further be operated to fully remove the removable seat 328 from both of the bores 330, 332 so that the fluid and/or refrigerant need not pass through the removable seat 328 during passage through the EEV 300.” Id. at 147. 2 Appeal 2014-007014 Application 13/276,824 Independent claim 1, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal: 1. An HVAC system, comprising: an electronic expansion valve, comprising: a motor; an obturator connected to the motor, the obturator being selectively movable in response to operation of the motor; and a removable seat selectively received within a complementary portion of the electronic expansion valve, the removable seat being selectively removable from the complementary portion in response to operation of the motor. THE REJECTION Before us for review is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 and 9— 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. (US 4,506,518, iss. Mar. 26, 1985, hereafter “Yoshikawa”) in view of Reedy et al. (US 5,002,089, iss. Mar. 26, 1991, hereafter “Reedy”). ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the combination of Yoshikawa and Reedy fails to teach “the removable seat being selectively removable from the complementary portion in response to operation of the motor,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 16. Appeal Br. 10-11. Specifically, Appellant asserts that combining the seat of Reedy with Yoshikawa would not allow for the seat to be “removable ... in response to operation of the motor as claimed.” Id. at 11. The Examiner finds that Yoshikawa discloses much of the claimed invention but fails to disclose the disputed limitation quoted above. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Reedy teaches a removable seat, considered 3 Appeal 2014-007014 Application 13/276,824 to be Reedy’s flow metering piston 70, and that the “seat” is movable and removable from a complementary portion. Id. at 3, 9-10 (citing Reedy, Fig. 2; col. 12,11. 5—10). The Examiner’s proposed modification involves the replacement of Yoshikawa’s bearing portion 26 with Reedy’s flow metering piston 70. Id. at 9—10. The Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the combination of Yoshikawa and Reedy because “the modification of Yoshikawa by Reedy provides the advantage of a removable seat (70) that can be readily interchanged by having different sized flow metering ports replaced with one another to facilitate matching a particular electrically controlled expansion valve to the requirement of a particular HVAC system.” Final Act. 10. We find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. While Reedy’s flow metering piston is, as the Examiner found, removable from the housing and is interchangeable with other flow metering pistons, this would require disassembly of the valve, presumably by the HVAC technician. See Reedy, col. 12,11. 8—14; Fig. 2. Notably absent from the Examiner’s articulation of the rejection is an adequate explanation as to how the removable seat, in the modified Yoshikawa device, would be “selectively removable ... in response to operation of the motor.” See, e.g., Final Act. 10 (asserting that modifying Yoshikawa would permit Reddy’s flow metering piston to be removed in response to the motor’s operation, with the modification providing the advantage of interchangeability, but not clearly indicating how this would occur). In the Answer, the Examiner appears to assert that disassembly of the valve (and presumably removal of the flow metering piston) due to a hypothetical failure of the motor would be, when broadly construed, “in response to the operation of the motor.” Ans. 9—10. The 4 Appeal 2014-007014 Application 13/276,824 Examiner applies an unreasonably broad interpretation when the claim is read in light of the specification. We determine that the Examiner has not shown that the proposed combination yields a removable seat selectively removable “in response to operation of the motor,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 11 and 16. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 16. We similarly do not sustain the rejection of claims 2— 6, 8—10, 12—15, and 17—20, which depend therefrom. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to rejection claims 1—7 and 9—20 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation