Ex Parte Querejeta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2013

13088292 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FELIX QUEREJETA
____________________

Appeal 2013-005864
Application 13/088,292
Patent US 7,600,529 B2
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-005864
Application 13/088,292
Patent US 7,600,529 B2

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Felix Querejeta (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33,
36, 39, and 40 in reissue application 13/088,292.1 This reissue application
seeks to reissue US Patent 7,600,529 B2, issued October 13, 2009, based
upon Application 11/601,152 filed November 17, 2006. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed generally “to a diaphragm type gas
pressure regulator valve adapted to a gas supply valve for a household
appliance with interchangeable means according to the type of gas supplied,
natural gas NG or liquefied petroleum gas LPG.” Spec. col. 1, ll. 4-8.
Claims 4 and 25 are independent. Claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
4. A gas pressure regulating valve comprising:
a valve body having a gas inlet and a gas
outlet,
a valve seat located between the gas inlet
and the gas outlet;

1 The Examiner originally also rejected claims 4, 5, 9-13, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26,
30-33, 39, 40, and 42 as unpatentable over Massengale and Almquist as well
as claims 20 and 40 over Massengale, Almquist, and Danby, but withdrew
these rejections based upon Appellant’s argument in the opening brief. See,
e.g., Ans. 3. Claims 6-8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27-29, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41,
43, and 44 stand objected to as containing allowable subject matter, but
dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Rej. 14.
Appeal 2013-005864
Application 13/088,292
Patent US 7,600,529 B2

3
a cap rotatably coupled with the valve body,
the cap rotatable between a first angular position
and a second angular position,
a diaphragm fixed in the valve body,
a valve member coupled to the diaphragm,
the valve member moveable with the diaphragm to
modify the distance of separation between the
valve member and the valve seat, the cap and
diaphragm having cooperative parts that engage
one another when the cap is in the first angular
position to cause the valve member to assume a
substantially fixed distance of separation relative
to the valve seat, when the cap is in the second
angular position the cooperative parts of the cap
and the diaphragm do not engage one another to
permit movement of the valve member relative to
the valve seat,
a resilient member acting on the diaphragm
and operatively coupled to the cap, the diaphragm
moveable against the resilient member to effect the
regulation of pressure at the gas outlet when the
cap is in the second angular position.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Niesemann
Almquist
Danby
US 2,288,733
US 3,921,664
US 4,537,387
Jul. 7, 1942
Nov. 25, 1975
Aug. 27, 1985

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, and 39 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Almquist. Final Rej. 2.
Appeal 2013-005864
Application 13/088,292
Patent US 7,600,529 B2

4
Claims 16 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Almquist and Niesemann. Final Rej. 7.
Claims 20 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Almquist and Danby. Final Rej. 8.

ANALYSIS
The main issue in this case is whether Almquist properly teaches the
limitation in claim 4, and also similarly recited in claim 25, relating to the
cap and diaphragm having cooperative parts whereby “when the cap is in the
first angular position” it causes “the valve member to assume a substantially
fixed distance of separation relative to the valve seat” and “when the cap is
in the second angular position the cooperative parts of the cap and
diaphragm do not engage one another to permit movement of the valve
member relative to the valve seat.” See, e.g., App. Br. 12-19. The Examiner
finds that Almquist discloses this first angular position by way of cap 33
being “rotatably coupled with the valve body, the cap rotatable between a
first angular position (inherently the cap can be threaded all the way down to
a position against the diaphragm so that the diaphragm is kept at its
lowermost position. . . .)” Final Rej. 2. Appellant contests the Examiner’s
inherency finding that Almquist’s cap 33 can be threaded all the way down
as stated. See App. Br. 13.
Appellant asserts that “the purpose of the adjusting knob 33 is to act
on the spring 32 so that it may be adjusted to a desired tension so that a
balanced relationship between the pressure of the spring 32 and the vacuum
pressure in energy chamber 24 in co-relation to the effect of the spring 28 on
Appeal 2013-005864
Application 13/088,292
Patent US 7,600,529 B2

5
the ball valve 27 is achieved.” App. Br. 14. Appellant also points out that
“Almquist teaches that the downward threading of the adjusting knob 33 is
in fact limited to a position that continues to accommodate a balanced
relationship between the pressure of spring 32 and the vacuum pressure in
energy chamber 24 in co-relation to the effect of the spring 28 on the ball
valve 27.” Id. Lastly, Appellant points out that the Examiner’s “notion that
the diaphragm 30 will only stop moving downward when the outer radial
projections of member 40 contact the top of the valve member seat 29 is
completely unsupported by Almquist, and in fact, contradicts the explicit
teaching of Almquist.” Id. Appellant goes on to point out that the basis for
the Examiner’s inherency assertion is based upon a partial quotation from
Almquist that does not fully support the Examiner’s position. See App. Br.
15.
The Examiner’s position is that “Almquist teaches that the cap 33 can
be easily rotated ‘in one direction or the other, causing it to move upwardly
or downwardly on the threads within the housing to any desired position.’”
Final Rej. 15 (citing Almquist col. 3, ll. 6-10). As Appellant correctly notes,
what Almquist actually states in full is:
Thus, the spring 32 may be adjusted to any desired tension by
easily rotating the knob in one direction or the other, causing it
to move upwardly or downwardly on threads within the housing
to any desired position indicated by the indicia on the housing
36 and the arm 37 on the knob 32 itself.

Almquist col. 3, ll. 6-12. Appellant argues that a proper reading of this
portion of Almquist “makes clear that the purpose of the knob 33 is to adjust
a desired tension of spring 32” and that “it makes clear that a desired
Appeal 2013-005864
Application 13/088,292
Patent US 7,600,529 B2

6
position of the knob on the threads within the casing (upward or downward)
is in fact limited with indicia on the housing 36 and the arm 37 on the knob
33 itself identifying the rotational limits of the knob.” App. Br. 15. While
we agree that this is a reasonable reading of Almquist, Appellant has
provided no evidence that Almquist operates only within the bounds of the
indicia. The Examiner’s position may be a mischaracterization of
Almquist’s Specification, but in and of itself this argument is insufficient to
overcome the Examiner’s finding that cap 33 is inherently capable of
rotating outside of the desired range indicated by the indicia to achieve the
claimed relationship.
Adding to this, Appellant argues that Almquist also includes “a seal
ring interposed within the threads which would prevent the cap 33 from
being threaded upward or downward within the casing.” App. Br. 17.
Appellant further asserts that “one of ordinary skill in the art well knows that
the existence of the seal/O-ring interposed in the threads of the Almquist
valve necessarily impedes rotation of the cap 33.” Reply Br. 10. The
Examiner’s only response regarding the effect of this seal ring and its
alleged interference with the Examiner’s stated capability of Almquist’s cap
to screw all the way down is to return to the partial quote of Almquist
discussed supra that cap 33 may “move upwardly or downwardly on the
threads within the housing to any desired position” and states that “thus
Applicant’s contention that the seal/O-ring would prevent such movement is
incorrect.” Ans. 10 (emphasis added). In reviewing Figs. 3 and 4 of
Almquist, at least on the right side of the valve assembly, the seal ring sits at
a position where it would appear that further downward movement of cap 33
Appeal 2013-005864
Application 13/088,292
Patent US 7,600,529 B2

7
would interfere with proper operation of the seal, thus supporting
Appellant’s position that the seal acts to make Almquist’s valve incapable of
achieving the claimed relationship at issue. We do not find the quoted
passage of Almquist to provide a reasonable basis for the Examiner’s
inherency position.
For this reason, we are persuaded on the record before us that
Almquist does not anticipate claim 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 4 ˗ and claims 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, which
depend therefrom ˗ as anticipated by Almquist. Claim 25 likewise contains
language similar to claim 4 regarding the two positions of the valve
assembly and so we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 25 and dependent claims 26, 30, 31, 33, and 39 as
anticipated by Almquist. None of the references cited in the obviousness
rejections makes up for this deficiency in Almquist and so we likewise do
not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16, 20, 36, and 40 as
unpatentable over various combinations including the Almquist reference.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, and 40.

REVERSED

Klh