Ex Parte Mircea

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

12632340 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
12/632,340 12/07/2009 Balan Mircea CCV-031416 3635
US/CMRN:0136
64833 7590 06/22/2017
FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
JELLETT, MATTHEW WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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 BALAN MIRCEA1
Appeal 2016-003050
Application 12/632,340
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Balan Mircea (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11 and 23—32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Cameron International
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003050
Application 12/632,340
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to floating ball valve seats.
Spec. 13. Claims 1 and 23 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A ball valve capable of relieving cavity pressure,
comprising:
a body, comprising a first groove and a body passage;
an adapter, comprising a second groove and an adapter
passage, wherein the adapter is coupled to the body;
a ball disposed between the body and the adapter and
configured to rotate about a radial axis to allow or block a flow
of fluid through the body passage and the adapter passage;
a first unitary annular seat disposed within the first
groove and in contact with and disposed between the body and
the ball, wherein the first unitary annular seat comprises a first
annular spring disposed between axially opposite first and
second surfaces of the first unitary annular seat, the first annular
spring biases the first and second surfaces of the first unitary
annular seat axially away from one another along a central axis
of the body passage and the adapter passage, and wherein the
first unitary annular seat is configured to self-relieve; and
a second unitary annular seat disposed within the second
groove and in contact with and disposed between the ball and
the adapter, wherein the second unitary annular seat comprises
a second annular spring disposed between axially opposite third
and fourth surfaces of the second unitary annular seat, the
second annular spring biases the third and fourth surfaces of the
second unitary annular seat axially away from one another
along the central axis, and wherein the second unitary annular
seat is configured to self-relie ve.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-003050
Application 12/632,340
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art reference in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
McClurg US 4,157,170 June 5, 1979
Zinnai US 4,258,901 Mar. 31,1981
THE REJECTION2
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11
and 23—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McClurg and
Zinnai.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 requires “a first unitary annular seat [that] comprises a first
annular spring disposed between axially opposite first and second surfaces
of the first unitary annular seat.” Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). The
Examiner found that McClurg discloses the majority of claim 1 ’s limitations,
including a seat made of spring material, but does not disclose “a U-shaped
metallic spring3 disposed between” the outer and inner surfaces of the
unitary annular seat. Final Act. 6—8 (citing McClurg, Figs. 4—5, item 44).
The Examiner found that Zinnai discloses a metallic spring disposed
2 The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,12, as indefinite,
but the rejection was later withdrawn and is not before us on appeal. See
Final Act. 5—6; Adv. Act. 2 (mailed June 8, 2015); Ans. 13.
3 Claim 1 requires “a first annular spring” and “a second annular spring,” but
does not require a “U-shaped” or “metallic” spring. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims
App.).
3
Appeal 2016-003050
Application 12/632,340
between the outer and inner surfaces of an annular seat. Id. at 8—9 (citing
Zinnai, Fig. 1, item 6, 2:35—40). The Examiner determined that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to utilize in lieu of merely the
spring material of the unitary seat as the biasing factor as taught
in McClurg, to include as taught in Zinnai, a U-shaped metallic
spring in a recess of the body of McClurg as taught in Zinnai, so
that for example, the seat may include additional spring force
strength when resisting compressive forces for example when
installed in a high pressure fluid line and also prevent permanent
deformation of the seat.
Id. at 9.
Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
combine the metal elastic member of Zinnai with the seat member of
McClurg because “Zinnai teaches a principle of operation of completely
shutting off fluid flow using the metal elastic member 6 while McClurg
teaches a principle of operation of self-relieving fluid pressure.” Appeal Br.
7. According to Appellant, “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
combine the metallic elastic member 6 of Zinnai with the seat member 44 of
McClurg because it would reasonably suggest changing the self-relieving
principle of operation taught by McClurg to a permanent shutoff of fluid
flow as taught by Zinnai.” Id. at 7—8.
In response, the Examiner found that the valves disclosed in McClurg
and Zinnai both close off an upstream line from a downstream line, are
subject to differentials between upstream and downstream pressure, and do
not teach away from one another. Ans. 14. The Examiner stressed that as “a
secondary reference Zinnai is merely cited for the inner seal groove and
metallic spring properties . . . not... for the self-relieving pressure aspects
. . . clearly disclosed in the primary reference McClurg.” Id. at 16. In
4
Appeal 2016-003050
Application 12/632,340
addition, the Examiner found that the disadvantage noted by Appellant
“cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise
be obvious” due to the advantage of using Zinnai’s spring to avoid
permanent deformation of the valve seat. Id. at 17.4
Appellant does not argue that the combination of McClurg and Zinnai
fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, and instead argues against
the basis for the combination of the two references. See Appeal Br. 6—8.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in the findings that support the
proposed combination of McClurg and Zinnai, including the finding that the
addition of Zinnai’s spring to McClurg would provide “additional spring
force strength when resisting compressive forces . . . and also prevent
permanent deformation of the seat.” Final Act. 9. Zinnai supports this
finding because it notes that the spring 6 “serves to prevent the seat packing
from subjecting to a permanent deformation.” Zinnai 2:35—37.
Appellant’s arguments do not directly address or undermine these
findings. Appellant’s argument that Zinnai’s spring cannot be added to
McClurg “because it would reasonably suggest changing the self-relieving
principle of operation taught by McClurg to a permanent shutoff of fluid
4 Appellant makes several arguments in Reply regarding claim 1, but we do
not consider arguments in Reply that were not made or developed in the
Appeal Brief “unless good cause is shown,” and Appellant has not attempted
to show such good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Accordingly,
Appellant’s arguments taking issue with the Examiner’s reliance on
McClurg’s seat 44 as a spring and the “additional spring force strength”
Zinnai’s spring would provide in the proposed combination are not
considered. See Reply Br. 5—6. Both of these findings were made in the
Final Office Action, and Appellant may not omit them from the Appeal
Brief and raise them for the first time in Reply merely because the Examiner
repeated the findings in the Answer. See Final Act. 7—9.
5
Appeal 2016-003050
Application 12/632,340
flow as taught by Zinnai” lacks support. Appeal Br. 8. As the Examiner
noted, the proposed combination only employs the seal groove and metallic
spring of Zinnai, without the need to bring in the entire teaching of Zinnai
including the complete shutoff of flow Appellant relies upon as the reason
for not making the proposed combination. See Ans. 16. Moreover,
Appellant’s arguments and evidence do not establish that the addition of the
groove and spring of Zinnai alone necessarily converts the self-relieving
nature of McClurg’s valve to a complete shutoff valve. See Appeal Br. 7—8.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not separately argue for the patentability of claims
2—11, which depend from claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 2—11 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 23
Claim 23 requires “an annular spring disposed within a seat groove
. . . wherein ... the annular spring biases the opposite first and second axial
surfaces of the unitary annular ball valve seat axially into contact with the
ball and the valve housing.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Similar to claim
1, the Examiner found that McClurg discloses the majority of limitations,
including a seat made of elastomeric material that discloses the claimed
spring, and that Zinnai discloses an annular spring disposed in a seat groove.
Final Act. 13. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
add Zinnai’s spring and groove to McClurg to provide “additional spring
force strength . . . and also prevent permanent deformation of the seat of
McClurg as taught by Zinnai.” Id. at 14.
6
Appeal 2016-003050
Application 12/632,340
Appellant argues that “McClurg does not disclose a spring that biases
the seat member 44” and that Zinnai “appears to teach away from axial
biasing [because] Zinnai discloses loading the seat packing 1 radially against
the inner valve seat 4.” Appeal Br. 8. In response, the Examiner found that
McClurg’s seat acts as a spring and that Zinnai discloses the annular spring
and valve seat. Ans. 18. The Examiner also found that Zinnai discloses an
annular spring within the valve seat “extending axially,” not radially as
Appellant argues. Id. at 18—19 (citing Zinnai, Fig. 5). In Reply, Appellant
expands on the argument that McClurg does not disclose a spring, and
argues that the Examiner improperly relies on McClurg’s seat 44 as both the
valve seat and claimed annular spring. Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim
23. First, the Examiner did not rely solely on McClurg’s seat 44 as the
annular spring, resulting in an improper reliance on a single structure in
McClurg to satisfy both the valve seat and annular spring limitations. The
Examiner found that “McClurg does not disclose: the annular spring
disposed within a seat groove,” but that Zinnai does disclose that structure.
Final Act. 13. Therefore, the Examiner clearly relied on Zinnai as disclosing
the claimed annular spring. We view the Examiner’s finding that McClurg
also discloses an annular spring as unnecessary given the reliance on
Zinnai’s spring, and even if in error it does not undermine the Examiner’s
amply supported and unrebutted finding that Zinnai discloses the claimed
spring. Appellant also argues that Zinnai’s spring biases the surfaces
radially rather than axially as required by claim 23, but the Examiner
correctly points out that Zinnai’s Figure 5 discloses an orientation where the
7
Appeal 2016-003050
Application 12/632,340
spring 6 biases in an axial direction. See Appeal Br. 8; Ans. 18—19; Zinnai,
Fig. 5. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 23.
Appellant does not separately argue for the patentability of claims
24—32, which depend from claim 23. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of claims 24—32 for the same reasons as claim 23.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—11 and
23-32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8