Ex Parte Rub et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2016

12737526 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121737,526 02/15/2011
513 7590 09/15/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP,
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Winfried Rub
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.
57740 3701
EXAMINER
ROST, ANDREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2016 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WINFRIED RUB and SASCHA A. BIWERSI
Appeal 2014-007626
Application 12/737,526
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Winfried Rub and Sascha A. Biwersi ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 9--17. 2
Claims 1-8 are cancelled. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hydac Filtertechnik
GmbH. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated July 26, 2013 ("Final
Act."), as further modified by the Advisory Action dated Nov. 1, 2013.
3 See Amendment dated Mar. 29, 2013.
Appeal 2014-007626
Application 12/737 ,526
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 9, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
9. A hydraulic valve device, comprising:
a fluid port arrangement having a plurality of individual
ports;
a movable control operatively coupled to and activating
said individual ports at least partially, said control having a
control part and a control slide;
a latch selectively securing the control and having at least
one latching part guided in a guide part and movable by said
control part in an actuatable manner into a latching position of a
locking part, said locking part being movable in a direction
opposite a direction of movement of said control into a receiving
position receiving said latching part under influence of said
latching part moved by said control part out of an initial position
thereof;
a compression spring biasing said locking part toward an
initial position thereof and permitting movement of said locking
part out of the initial position thereof into a holding position
thereof, said compression spring having one end being
permanently support in any travel position of said control slide
on said control slide and an opposite end on said locking part;
a control cone on said control part engageable with said
latching part;
a locking cone on said control part engageable with said
latching part, said locking cone being more steeply sloped than
said control cone;
at least one receiving space with a radial penetration depth
receiving said latching part under influence of said control part,
said radial penetration depth being adequate to receive
completely said latching part in said receiving space and
allowing said control cone to pass said receiving space in an axial
direction; and
a pointed enclosure edge forming an outside linear
boundary between said control cone and said locking cone.
2
Appeal 2014-007626
Application 12/737 ,526
THE REJECTION
Claims 9-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Barnes (US 3,438,399; iss. Apr. 15, 1969) and Kubozono (US 4,844,412;
iss. July 4, 1989).
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claim 9, the Examiner finds that Barnes
discloses the claimed hydraulic valve device except for "the control part
including a control cone and a tapered enclosure edge forming an outside
linear boundary between the control cone and a locking cone." Final Act. 4--
5. The Examiner further finds that Kubozono discloses these features and
identifies taper 32a as the claimed control cone, taper 34b as the claimed
locking cone, and ring-like projection 33 as the claimed pointed enclosure
edge forming an outside linear boundary between the control cone and the
locking cone. Id. at 5. The Examiner explains that "the interaction between
the surface 33 and the surface 34b [or between the surface 33 and the surface
3 2a] forms a pointed edge that is an outside linear boundary between the
control cone and the locking cone." Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 8. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the control
part of Barnes with taper 34b and ring-like projection 33 of Kubozono "in
order to permit the movable control to be shifted to a desired predetermined
position with a minimized device." Final Act. 5---6.
Appellants argue that Kubozono's ring-like projection 33 is "a flat
surface" that is not "pointed," and that "the edge between ring[-like]
projection 33 and taper 34b i[s] not a linear boundary between the tapers
3[2]a and 34b," as required by claim 9. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants submit
that the claim term "'boundary' is defined as 'something that indicates or
3
Appeal 2014-007626
Application 12/737 ,526
fixes a limit or extent ... a bounding or separating line"' (Reply Br. 3 (citing
WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY)), and that to form a boundary
between taper 32a and taper 34b, either one of the axial edges of
Kubozono's flat, cylindrical ring-like projection 33 "must indicate or fix the
limit or extent of or form the bounding line between ... tapers [32b, 34a ]"
(id. at 2). Appellants contend that the axial edges of Kubozono's flat,
cylindrical ring-like projection 33 "only indicate or fix the limit or extent of
one of those tapers and not both of the tapers." Id. Appellants explain that,
in the claimed invention, the pointed enclosure edge forms an outside linear
boundary such that "latching part 26 can move quickly into and out of its
latching position without hysteresis or delay," as compared to the
Examiner's modified structure of Barnes, which would cause hysteresis
because Kubozono's ring-like projection 33 separates tapers 32a and 34b.
Appeal Br. 5.
We agree with Appellants that the flat, cylindrical surface of
Kubozono's ring-like projection 33 is not itself "a pointed enclosure edge,"
as claimed. We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
finding that either of Kubozono 's edges, which are defined at the axial ends
of the flat, cylindrical surface of ring-like projection 33, individually forms a
boundary between taper 32a and 34b, or indicates the limits of both tapers
32a, 34b, as required by claim 9. Rather, the edge at one axial end of
Kubozono's flat, cylindrical surface of ring-like projection 33 forms a
boundary between the flat, cylindrical surface and taper 32a, and the edge at
the other axial end forms a boundary between the flat, cylindrical surface
and taper 34b.
4
Appeal 2014-007626
Application 12/737 ,526
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 9, and claims 10-1 7, depending therefrom.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barnes and Kubozono.
REVERSED
5