Ex Parte Petrovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2013

11311828 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN E. PETROVIC and PETER DABROWSKI.
____________

Appeal 2010-006767
Application 11/311,828
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John E. Petrovic and Peter Dabrowski (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15, 17,
and 18. App. Br. 4. Claims 15 and 17 are independent claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-006767
Application 11/311,828

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a diverter valve for directing
fluid from an inlet to multiple outlets, and in particular, to a rotary three-way
converter valve for use in a shower assembly having a fixed shower head
and a hand-held shower wand.” Spec. 1, para. [0002]. Claim 15 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the
key disputed limitation emphasized.
15. A diverter valve for directing fluid flow comprising:
a housing having an inlet port and first and second outlet
ports;
a camshaft having a rotational axis and including a cam
lobe offset relative to the rotational axis and rotatable about the
rotational axis with the camshaft; and
a cam follower supported on the cam lobe and movable
linearly along a longitudinal axis in response to rotation of the
camshaft about the rotational axis to selectively block at least
one of the first and second outlet ports, wherein the cam
follower includes an elongated aperture engaging and fully
surrounding the cam lobe.

THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Courtot US 2,534,577 Dec. 19, 1950

THE REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the following rejection:
Claims 15, 17, and 18 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Courtot. Ans. 3.

Appeal 2010-006767
Application 11/311,828

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Figures 4 and 5 of Courtot teach a diverter
valve assembly comprising a housing having an inlet port 26, a first outlet
port 25, and a second outlet port 45 arranged 180 degrees from the first inlet
port; a camshaft 36 having a rotational axis and including a cam lobe 37
offset relative to the rotational axis and rotatable with the camshaft; and a
cam follower 27, 28 supported on the cam lobe 37 and movable linearly
along a longitudinal axis in response to rotation of the camshaft 36 about the
rotational axis to selectively block at least one of the first and second outlet
ports. Ans. 3.
Independent claims 15 and 17 recite the cam follower being
“moveable linearly along a longitudinal axis in response to rotation of the
camshaft . . . .” Appellants argue that Courtot’s cam follower 27, 28 is not
movable linearly along a longitudinal axis, but rather moves eccentrically
within the housing. App. Br. 5. Appellants explain that Courtot’s cam
follower 27, 28 is maintained in rolling engagement with the inner surface of
the housing as it is rolled along that surface by the cam lobe 37, and argue
that such eccentric movement does not equate with the claimed linear
movement along a longitudinal axis. Id.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner states that the
cam follower 27, 28 of Courtot does not move eccentrically within the
housing. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that opposing ends of the cam
follower selectively block the opposing outlets 25 and 45, which are clearly
arranged 180 degrees with respect to each other, and that movement of
Courtot’s cam follower does not constitute eccentric movement of the cam
Appeal 2010-006767
Application 11/311,828

4
follower, but rather linear movement of the cam follower along a
longitudinal axis. Ans. 4-5.
We disagree with the Examiner. Courtot’s figures show that its cam
follower 27, 28 would move eccentrically within the chamber 14 as the
camshaft 36 rotates the cam lobe 37 to drive the cam follower along its path
to selectively block outlet ports 25, 45. Such eccentric movement does not
provide a linearly moveable cam follower as claimed.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Courtot.

REVERSED

msc