Ex Parte Östling

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2018

13261395 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/261,395 08/08/2012
2529 7590
MARK P. STONE
400 Columbus A venue
Valhalla, NY 10595
09/14/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Ostling
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.
AC-197 5726
EXAMINER
LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2018 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):
stone92349@msn.com
aleitner.stonelaw@msn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS OSTLING
Appeal2017-009269
Application 13/261,395
Technology Center 3700
Before MEREDITH C. PETRA VICK, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as "Atlas Copco Rock
Drills AB." (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-009269
Application 13/261,395
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Appellant, the claimed invention "concerns a rock
drilling machine and a method to hinder the occurrence and spreading of
cavitation bubbles in a rock drilling machine." (Spec. 1, 11. 3--4.)
Illustrative Claims
1. Rock drilling machine ( 10) comprising a piston that is
arranged to move back and forth in a chamber (12a, 12b) when
the rock drilling machine (10) is in use, a cavitation sensitive
component (14), and an oil channel that is arranged to extend
between the chamber (12a, 12b) and said cavitation-sensitive
component (14), wherein said oil channel comprises a series of
restrictions (18) and spaces (20) for restricting oil flow through
said oil channel during decreasing pressure in the chamber (12a,
12b) to hinder the spreading of cavitation bubbles through said
oil channel and to isolate the cavitation-sensitive component
from cavitation damage without components having movable
parts, said series of restrictions and spaces including at least one
space for collecting oil flowing through said oil channel, said at
least one space being disposed between two restrictions having
decreased cross sectional areas.
9. Use of a rock drilling machine ( 10) according to claim 1, to
hinder the occurrence and spreading of cavitation bubbles of a
rock drilling machine ( 10) by restricting oil flow through said
oil channel by said series of restrictions and spaces of said oil
channel.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Bakke. 2
2 US 6,206,101 Bl, issued March 27, 2007. Our quotations from this
reference will omit, where applicable, bolding and/or italicization of
reference numerals.
2
Appeal2017-009269
Application 13/261,395
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] rock drilling machine," and claim 9
recites the "[u]se" of such a machine to "hinder the occurrence and
spreading of cavitation bubbles." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The rest of the
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-8 and 10-20) depend directly or ultimately
from independent claim 1. (See id.)
Independent claim 1 requires the rock drilling machine to comprise an
"oil channel" (Appeal Br., Claims App.); and the Examiner finds that Bakke
discloses a rock drilling machine comprising "an oil channel (27 /28/24 with
portions 17 /18/19/23/14)" (Final Action 2). In Bakke, housing 2 defines
annular spaces 17, 18, 19, and 23, which are "filled with hydraulic oil."
(Bakke, col. 3, 11. 49-50.) Bakke's oil-filled annular spaces 17, 18, 19, and 23
are connected by channel 24 in shoulder 14, channel 27 in collar 25, and
channel 28 in collar 26. (See id. at col. 3, 11. 32-35, 46-48, col. 4, 11. 6-12,
Figs. 1-3.)
Independent claim 1 also requires the oil channel to comprise a series
of "restrictions" and "spaces" for "restricting oil flow through said oil
channel," to "hinder the spreading of cavitation bubbles through said oil
channel," and "to isolate [a] cavitation-sensitive component from cavitation
damage." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Bakke's oil
channel has "restricting edges and pockets/spaces" that "are arranged to
hinder the flow of hydraulic oil" and the "turns, restrictions, and changing
diameters will cause disruption in the flow and cavitation." (Answer 2.)
Independent claim 1 further recites the above-discussed restricting,
hindering, and isolating is "without components having movable parts."
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that "restrictions and
3
Appeal2017-009269
Application 13/261,395
spaces" of Bakke' s oil channel, which hinder cavitation via "the disruption
of flowing through these restrictions and spaces," are "not movable and are
fixed in the chamber in which the hydraulic oil flows." (Answer 3.)
The Appellant argues that, insofar as Bakke hinders cavitation, "this is
accomplished with the aid of moving parts, namely the movable collars and
valves." (Reply Br. 2.) We are persuaded by the Appellant's position.
In Bakke, channels 27 and 28 listed by the Examiner reside on
collars 25 and 26, which are part of sleeve 12 that is movable within
housing 2. (See Bakke, col. 3, 11. 56-60; Figs. 1-3.) Also, "[i]n each of the
collars 25, 26 is further arranged a check valve 29 and 30, respectively, of a
larger cross-sections than the channels 27, 28." (Id. at col. 4, 11. 11-14.)
Bakke' s description of the operation and interaction of the sleeve, collars,
channels, and check valves is as follows:
The check valve 29 in the collar 25 is arranged to open for
liquid from the upper side of the collar 25 to its underside. The
check valve 30 is arranged opposite, to open for liquid from the
underside of the collar 26 to its upper side. If the sleeve 12 is
displaced, this entails great flow resistance for the one of the
collars 25, 26 which is being moved in the direction towards the
annular space 18, and little resistance for the collar 25, 26 which
is simultaneously being moved in the direction from the annular
space 18. A collar 25, 26 which is in the annular space 18,
provides little flow resistance independently of the direction of
motion, as liquid may pass outside the collar. If the sleeve 12 is
subjected to a downward force which is greater than the force
from the spring 9, the sleeve 12 (and thereby the slide 3) will
move slowly downwards because of the flow resistance in the
channel 27 in the collar 25. When the collar 25 enters the annular
space 18, the flow resistance is reduced, and the sleeve 12 is
quickly moved to a lower end-position, in which the lower
collar 26 abuts the shoulder 14, as the check valve 30 will open
for the liquid flow. If the downward force is removed, the
4
Appeal2017-009269
Application 13/261,395
spring 9 will seek to bring the sleeve 12 and the slide 3 back into
the upper position. The check valve 30 will then close, and the
speed of the sleeve 12 is restricted by the flow resistance in the
channel 28. The channels 27, 28 serve as flow resistors. The
check valve 29 in the upper collar 25 will open for liquid flow,
so that there will be little flow resistance when the collar 25 is
displaced in the annular space 17. When the collar 26 enters the
annular space 18, the flow resistance is reduced, and the
sleeve 12 is quickly displaced towards the upper end-position.
(Bakke, col. 4, 11. 26-25 ( emphasis added).) Accordingly, in Bakke,
sleeve 12, and thus collars 25 and 26 and channels 27 and 28, move while
supposedly disrupting flow to hinder cavitation. Also, check valves 29
and 30 appear to further move independently with respect to collars 25
and 26 to open/close depending upon the direction of displacement of
sleeve 12. And the Examiner does not provide us with a finding that these
movable components do not participate in "the disruption" of oil "flowing
through these restrictions and spaces," which is allegedly responsible for
hindering cavitation.
Consequently, the Examiner does not explain adequately how or why
Bakke restricts oil flow through the oil channel during decreasing chamber
pressure, hinders the spread of cavitation bubbles, and/or isolates a
cavitation-sensitive component from cavitation damage "without
components having movable parts," as required by independent claim 1.
The Examiner's further findings with respect to the rest of the claims on
appeal (see Final Action 3--4) do not compensate for this shortcoming in the
rejection of independent claim 1.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bakke.
5
Appeal2017-009269
Application 13/261,395
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6