Ex parte PARKER

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 1998

08307348 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 16, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte THOMAS W. PARKER
_____________
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,3481
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, FRANKFORT and STAAB, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 12 and 15 through 17.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 5 and 7
through 9, the only other claims pending in the application,
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
2
were objected
to, but have been indicated to be allowable if rewritten in
independent form.
Appellant's invention relates to a reversing valve, such
as that found in a vapor compression refrigeration system
(e.g., a heat pump system). Of importance to appellant is
that the reversing valve be so constructed and arranged that
the valve member “is relieved from system fluid pressure
forcing it against its seat as it moves between alternative
flow directing positions along a path of travel by which it is
separated from its seat, thereby avoiding substantial friction
forces opposing valve member motion and enabling use of
simple, low force valve actuators” (specification, page 4,
lines 17-23). Independent claims 1, 6, 12, 15 and 17 are
representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
those claims may be found in Appendix A of appellant’s brief.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
3
Van Allen et al. (Van Allen) 2,855,000 Oct. 07, 1958
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 12, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Van Allen.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. In the examiner’s view, the
recitation in claim 17, subparagraph d), of the valve member
being reciprocated about its axis appears to be inaccurate.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding the above rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed May 9, 1996) and the supplemental examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 18, mailed July 29, 1996) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed February 29, 1996) and
reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed July 11, 1996) for
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
4
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
to the applied prior art Van Allen reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s rejections cannot be sustained. Our reasons
follow.
Looking first at the examiner’s rejection of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we must agree with
appellant (brief, pages 14-15) that the language employed in
claim 17 on appeal is reasonably definite and accurately
defines appellant’s invention, since it is apparent from
appellant’s specification that the reversing valve member (24)
is “reciprocated” (i.e., moved alternatively back and forth)
between the first and second positions defined in claim 17.
The fact that there may be a significant time delay between
movement of the valve member to the second position and any
return movement of the valve member back to the first
position, and vice versa, is of no moment, since movement from
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
5
a first position to a second position and back to the first
position in the manner described in appellant’s specification
clearly results in “reciprocation” of the valve member.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, will not be sustained.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 4, 6, 12, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated
by Van Allen, we are in full agreement with appellant’s
position as set forth on pages 7 through 14 of the brief and
in the reply
brief. Independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal expressly require
that the actuator therein be operable to reverse the direction
of the net differential pressure force acting on the valve
member to permit unseating of the valve member so that it may
be moved from one position to the other. Independent claim 12
requires an actuator for
moving said valve member relative to said seat
struc-ture between said first and second positions
along a path of travel where said valve member and
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
6
said seat structure are spaced apart (emphasis
added),
and that the actuator include pressure control valving for
“dissipating” the pressure differential which would normally
act on the valve member to force the valve member and the seat
into sealing engagement, to thereby enable disengaging of said
valve member and seat structure. Claim 15 on appeal recites
an actuator “for unseating the valve member and moving it away
from said surface” (emphasis added). After a careful review
of the
reversing valve arrangement in Van Allen it is clear to us
that this reference does not disclose, teach or suggest a
reversing valve as set forth in appellant’s claims on appeal.
Even though it appears possible that a portion of the
high pressure side of the valve member (38) of Van Allen might
move
out of engagement with the header (16) under some given set of
circumstances if the ports (52) and (68) were sized to permit
a sufficient reduction of the high pressure in the chamber
(11), any such movement of the valve member is contrary to the
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
7
clear intent of Van Allen. In this regard, we again agree
with the arguments made by appellant on pages 7 through 14 of
the brief, in the reply brief, and also in paragraphs 9
through 14 of the declaration filed November 24, 1995 (as an
attachment to Paper No. 9), which declaration was entered and
considered by the examiner (see the advisory action, Paper No.
10, mailed December 5, 1995).
Construing subparagraph d) of appellant’s claims 1, 6 and
15, and subparagraph e) of claim 12 in light of appellant’s
disclosure, we understand each of these claim recitations to
require that the actuator therein cause the entirety of the
valve
member (24) to be unseated (i.e., moved out of engagement with
the seating face or surface (61)) prior to shifting of the
valve member to the other position. Note particularly, page
9, lines 15-17, of appellant’s specification, wherein it is
indicated that
the valve member “moves to its second position by shifting
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
8
axially away from the port plate 36,” rotating 90 degrees
about the longitudinal housing assembly axis (70) and then
shifting
back into engagement with the port plate (36). In the
paragraph bridging pages 15 and 16 of appellant’s
specification, it is again emphasized that the valve member
(24) is unseated and shifted axially away from the port plate
(36), with the result that the valve member is “freely
rotatable relative to the guide member 72 and slide 102 so
that negligible frictional resistance to valve member rotation
about the axis 70 exists.” Like appellant, we note that there
is nothing in the disclosure of the Van Allen patent
concerning the valve member (38) therein being “unseated” in
the manner required in appellant’s disclosed and claimed
invention, i.e., there is nothing in Van Allen from which
to conclude that the patent discloses anything other than
merely
reducing the down force applied to the valving member and
rotating the valving member while the reduced force is applied
to it and the seal desired in Van Allen (col. 2, lines 32-35)
is maintained.
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
9
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 4, 6, 12, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as
being anticipated by Van Allen is reversed.
To summarize our decision, the examiner's rejection of
claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 12, 15 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) have been reversed
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
10
Appeal No. 97-0970
Application 08/307,348
11
Watts, Hoffmann, Fisher & Heinke Co.
P.O. Box 99839
Cleveland, OH 44199-0839