Ex Parte Rudolph et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2013

11153293 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT RUDOLPH, JOE HOOVER, and
DAVID G. ENGELBERT
____________________

Appeal 2011-001179
Application 11/153,293
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001179
Application 11/153,293

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 9-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Spec., paras. [0002]-[0007] and Figure 1)
(hereinafter “AAPA”) and Hettinger (US 6,688,325 B2, pub. Feb. 10, 2004).
Ans. 3-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was
held on January 25, 2013.
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to pneumatic brake systems for
heavy vehicles. Spec., para. [0001]. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are the
independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle brake system comprising:
a source of fluid pressure adapted to supply a braking
force to at least one brake actuator; and
a modular valve unit fluidly coupling the brake actuator
to said source of fluid pressure, said modular valve unit
comprising a plurality of valve modules, each of the plurality of
valve modules comprising:
a housing in which working elements of the valve
module are contained;
at least one port in said housing adapted to be an
input port or an output port, the at least one port adapted
to cooperate with and be directly fluidly connected to at
least one port of another of the plurality of valve

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Haldex Brake Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-001179
Application 11/153,293

3
modules, thereby obviating the need for tubing or piping;
and
wherein each of the plurality of valve modules is self-
contained and comprises a stand-alone unit capable of operating
independently of any other of the plurality of valve modules;
wherein a first of the plurality of valve modules
comprises an electronic parking solenoid valve module, a
second of the plurality of valve modules comprises an
anticompounding valve module and a third of the plurality of
valve modules comprises an inversion valve module.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 13, and 21
Only issues and findings of fact contested by Appellants in the Briefs
will be addressed. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI
2010) (precedential). Appellants argue independent claims 1, 13, and 21 as
a group. App. Br. 6-10. We select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
The Examiner found that AAPA teaches all of the limitations of claim
1 except for “a modular valve unit.” Ans. 4. The Examiner found that
Hettinger teaches adjacent valve modules comprising “housings, understood
to be the valve and module block (48, 38) [of Hettinger].” Id. In other
words, the Examiner found the assembled unit of the “assembled valve 48
and associated module block 38” to include a housing that meets the claim
limitation. Id. at 7. The Examiner concluded that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to modify the brake systems
of applicant’s admitted prior art to include the val[v]e modules
and attachment mechanisms, as taught by Hettinger, to provide
a compact modular brake control unit made up of standardized
components for the purpose of reducing manufacturing and
Appeal 2011-001179
Application 11/153,293

4
replacement cost and allowing for simple replacement or
rearrangement of valve modules.
Id. at 4-5.
Appellants contend that there is no single valve module housing that
includes both the working elements of the valve and a port adapted to
cooperate with and be directly fluidly connected to another port of another
valve module as set forth in the claim. App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants appear to want us to interpret the limitation of a “housing” to
mean only a single, unitary housing structure. App. Br. 8; Hrg. Tr. 6: 14-26
and 10:3-9. Appellants point to paragraphs [0035] and [0039] and Figures
3-4, which reference housings 54, 56, and 58, in support of such an
interpretation. Hrg. Tr. 6:19-26. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments because although the claims are interpreted in light of the
Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims.
We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the
Specification into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d
870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In this case, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed “housing” is
not limited to a single, unitary structure and, thus, can be met by “an
assembled unit” comprising “the assembled valve 48 and associated modular
block 38 . . . which includes the working elements (springs 60, 66 [sic];
armature 64; rocker 66; and diaphragm 50) and at least one port (see 44a,
44b, 46a, 46b, and 88 of fig. 2).” Ans. 6-7. Neither the written description
nor the language of the claims precludes the housing from being an
assembly of two or more elements.
Appeal 2011-001179
Application 11/153,293

5
Appellants also contend that the valve modules of Hettinger are not
self-contained and fail to comprise stand-alone units as set forth in claim 1.
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants contend that “for the
system taught in Hettinger to function, it is necessary to couple the external
valves onto the module block.” App. Br. 8. Appellants’ contention is not
persuasive because it does not address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner. The Examiner is not relying solely on the external valves of
Hettinger as meeting the limitation of the “valve module,” but rather on the
assembly of the external valve and module block of Hettinger. See Ans. 8-9
(“the Examiner again points to figure 5 of Hettinger, which shows a single
self-contained valve module (48, 38). The valve modules meet the claim
limitation of being a ‘stand-alone unit’ in that each of the valve modules are
separately provided (see fig. 5, 6a, 7); and further meet the claim limitation
of being ‘capable of operating independently of any other of the plurality of
valve modules’ in that each of the valve modules are independently fluidly
connected to a common block/base (202, 204; 302, 304) through ports (284;
322) and comprise individual solenoids (52) (see fig. 6a, 6b, 7).”).
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why
Hettinger’s assembly of the external valve and module block is not self-
contained and fails to comprise a stand-alone unit.
Appellants further contend that the valve modules of Hettinger cannot
be directly fluidly connected to each other as set forth in claim 1. App. Br.
8-9; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants contend that “[i]t is clear that the
valves [48] cannot be directly coupled to each other. Rather; each valve [48]
must be coupled to a module block [38] and, in turn, various module blocks
[38] may be coupled to each other.” App. Br. 9. Again, Appellants’
Appeal 2011-001179
Application 11/153,293

6
contention is not persuasive because it does not address the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner since the Examiner is not relying solely on the
external valves 48 (nor solely on the module blocks 38) as meeting the
limitation of the “valve module,” but rather on the assembly of the external
valve 48 and module block 38 of Hettinger. See Ans. 8-9. Appellants have
not provided persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why Hettinger’s
assemblies of the external valves and module blocks cannot be directly
coupled to each other.
We also do not find persuasive Appellants’ general contention that the
Examiner has not provided “a reason that would have prompted the skilled
worker to have arranged [all of the elements of the claims] in the manner
necessary to reach the claimed invention.” App. Br. 9. The contention is
unconvincing as it does not identify any deficiencies in the Examiner’s
stated rationale—“to provide a compact module brake control unit made up
of standardized components for the purpose of reducing manufacturing and
replacement costs and allowing for simple replacement or rearrangement of
valve modules.” Ans. 4-5.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in
concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious from
the combination of AAPA and Hettinger, and we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20
Claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1 or 13. Appellants’ arguments in support of the patentability of
claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 solely relate to the perceived deficiencies
Appeal 2011-001179
Application 11/153,293

7
in the combined teachings of AAPA and Hettinger. 2 App. Br. 10; Reply Br.
4. Since we have found no such deficiencies in the combination of AAPA
and Hettinger, we find that the Examiner did not err in concluding that the
subject matter of claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 would have been
obvious from the combination of AAPA and Hettinger, and we sustain the
rejection of claims 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-21 under § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9-15, and 17-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc

2 Regarding claim 5, Appellants argued at the oral hearing that AAPA and
Hettinger did not teach “an attachment mechanism by which adjacent valve
modules are detachably joined together.” Claims App’x.; Hrg. Tr. 10:25 to
12:2. However, that feature was not argued in the briefs and was raised for
the first time at oral argument. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(e)(1)(2011),
Appellants may only present argument relied on in the Brief or Reply Brief,
except as permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(e)(2). Because Appellants have
not shown good cause why or how the argument is based upon a relevant
decision of either the Board or a Federal Court, we decline to consider the
argument.