Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

12820315 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/820,315 06/22/2010 Klaus Schneider 298-522 1937
28249 7590 11/23/2016
DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP
Dilworth & Barrese, LLP
1000 WOODBURY ROAD
SUITE 405
WOODBURY, NY 11797
EXAMINER
LOPEZ, FRANK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS SCHNEIDER
and WILHELM KRAEUTLER
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEN B. BARRETT, and JAMES P. CALVE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—5, 7—14, 16, 17, and 20. See Br. 19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A hydraulic system having a hydraulic circuit including a
first hydraulic power unit and a feed pump for feeding
hydraulic fluid to adjust for changes in pressure within the
hydraulic circuit, wherein the feed pump is driven by a
hydraulic drive motor driven by a second hydraulic power unit.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—5, 7—14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1—3, 8, 12—14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Reinhardt (US 4,553,391, iss. Nov. 19, 1985).
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 12—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kosek (US 4,026,107, iss. May 31, 1977).
Claims 1—3, 8, 12—14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Satzler (US 5,878,569, iss. Mar. 9, 1999).
Claim 1,9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Endo (US 6,378,301 B2, iss. Apr. 30, 2002).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 12—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Macit (US 6,122,913, iss. Sept. 26, 2000).
Claims 1—5, 8, 10—14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Rose (US 6,973,782 B2, iss. Dec. 13,
2005).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rose.
2
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5, 7—14, 16, 17, and 20 as being indefinite
Independent Claims 1 and 12
The Examiner found that the recital of a feed pump that adjusts for
changes in pressure in the hydraulic circuit in claims 1 and 12 is unclear and
not supported by the Specification.1 Final Act. 2. The Examiner found that
it is unclear how the feed pump is connected to the hydraulic circuit with the
first power unit or how the pressure fluctuations arise. Id. The Examiner
further found that Appellants’ argument that the feed pump is adjusted in
response to the pressure change is not supported in the Specification, and the
second power unit (not the feed pump) is the only element that adjusts to
pressure changes in the hydraulic circuit. Ans. 12.
We agree with Appellants that a skilled artisan would understand that
claims 1 and 12 recite a hydraulic system and method for feeding hydraulic
fluid in which a feed pump feeds hydraulic fluid to adjust for changes in the
pressure in the hydraulic circuit. Br. 6—7. Appellants disclose feed pump 20
is connected with both halves of the first hydraulic circuit to feed hydraulic
fluid to the circuit to avoid cavitation and to redeliver hydraulic fluid that
escapes from the hydraulic circuit due to external leakages. Spec., 13:1—5,
Fig. 1. Feeding hydraulic fluid to avoid cavitation, which we understand to
involve the formation of liquid-free zones due to rapid changes of pressure
in a fluid, can be understood to adjust for pressure changes in the circuit.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 as indefinite.
1 Appellants subsequently amended claim 1 to recite “a feed pump for
feeding hydraulic fluid to adjust for changes in pressure within
the hydraulic circuit.” Response to Office Action, filed March 21, 2014, 2.
3
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the feed pump feeds
hydraulic fluid into one or more hydraulic circuits comprising a hydraulic
pump and a hydraulic motor, via one or more check valves.” The Examiner
found this phrase confusing because claim 1 already recites that the feed
pump feeds hydraulic fluid into a hydraulic circuit including a first hydraulic
power unit. Final Act. 3. The Examiner found that it is unclear what the
relationship of the one or more hydraulic circuits of claim 9 is to have to the
hydraulic circuit of claim 1 and what relationship the pump and motor of
claim 9 is to have to the first hydraulic power unit of claim 1. Id.; Ans. 12.
Appellants argue that the language of claim 9 is clear because such
hydraulic power units are well known as the main driving components of
hydraulic systems and consist of a motor, reservoir, and pump. Br. 7—8.
A skilled artisan would not understand the scope of claim 9 from the
Appellants’ disclosure and language of the claims. It is unclear whether the
“one or more hydraulic circuits” of claim 9 include the hydraulic circuit of
claim 1 or are additional hydraulic circuits besides the hydraulic circuit of
claim 1. Because claim 1 recites a feed pump for feeding hydraulic fluid to
a hydraulic circuit, claim 9 should recite the feed pump feeding fluid to one
or more additional hydraulic circuits if Appellants intend claim 9 to cover
hydraulic circuits in addition to the hydraulic circuit of claim 1. If the one or
more hydraulic circuits of claim 9 includes the hydraulic circuit of claim 1,
then claim l’s recital of “a feed pump for feeding hydraulic fluid to adjust
for changes in pressure within the hydraulic circuit” could be seen as a
statement of intended use, where claim 9 recites that the feed pump “for
feeding” of claim 1 actually feeds fluid to one or more circuits.
4
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
Appellants’ Specification does not clarify this ambiguity. Appellants
disclose embodiments in which feed pump 5 feeds a single circuit (Fig. 1)
and embodiments in which feed pump 20 feeds two circuits (Fig. 2).
Claim 9’s recital of hydraulic circuits comprising a hydraulic pump
and a hydraulic motor does not clarify this ambiguity. It is unclear whether
the “first hydraulic power unit” of claim 1 also comprises these elements or
whether only the “one or more hydraulic circuits” of claim 9 comprise these
two elements. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 for indefmiteness.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner finds that the “third displacement
machine” is confusing because claim 1 recites that the feed pump is driven
by a hydraulic drive motor that is driven by a second hydraulic power unit,
but claim 11 recites that the hydraulic drive motor of claim 1 is driven by a
third displacement machine so that the third displacement machine appears
to be the same element as the second hydraulic power unit of claim 1. Final
Act. 3; Ans. 13—14.
Appellants argue that the “third displacement machine” is a different
element, i.e., element 50, in Figures 3 and 5 of their disclosure. Br. 8—9.
A skilled artisan would not understand the scope of claim 11 from the
Appellants’ disclosure and language of the claims. It is unclear how a “third
displacement machine” relates to the hydraulic drive motor that drives the
feed pump of claim 1 or to the second hydraulic power unit that drives the
hydraulic drive motor. Figures 3 and 4 show an inlet of a third displacement
machine 50 connected to an outlet of feed pumps 21, 22. The outlet of third
displacement machine 50 is not connected to an inlet of the hydraulic drive
motors 31, 32 that drives feed pumps 21, 22, as recited in claim 11.
5
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
It is unclear how the inlet of the hydraulic drive motor that is driven
by a second hydraulic power unit in claim 1 also is connected to the outlet of
a third displacement machine in claim 11. Appellants’ disclosure does not
clarify this ambiguity, as discussed above. See Spec., 15; Figs. 3, 4.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites that “the feed
pump feeds hydraulic fluid with a pressure below 70 bar, with a pressure
between 0.1 and 50 bar.” Appellants disclose that the feed pump is operated
with a delivery pressure below 70 bar, in particular with a pressure between
0.1 and 50 bar. Spec., 11:8—9.
The Examiner found that claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear
whether the larger or smaller range is claimed. Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 14.
Appellants argue that the limitations are not conflicting because 0.1 to
50 bar is below 70 bar. Br. 9.
A skilled artisan would not understand the scope of claim 14 from the
Appellants’ disclosure and language of claim 14. It is unclear whether the
broader range of below 70 bar is being claimed or the narrower range of 0.1
to 50 bar. Appellants’ arguments that 0.1 to 50 bar is within the range of
below 70 bar does not clarify this ambiguity. If Appellants intend to claim a
range between 0.1 and 50 bar, then the further recitation of a pressure below
70 bar appears superfluous to the claim scope sought. If a pressure below 70
bar is being claimed, then claiming a range of between 0.1 and 50 bar is
superfluous. Thus, it is unclear whether a device that operates at above 50
bar, but below 70 bar, falls within the scope of claim 14.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 14 for indefiniteness.
6
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
Claims 1—3, 8, 12—14, and 16 as anticipated by Reinhardt
The Examiner found that Reinhardt discloses a hydraulic system and
method, as claimed, including a feed pump (first hydrostatic machine 15)
driven by hydraulic drive motor (second hydrostatic machine 16) that is
driven by a second hydraulic pump (not shown) via valve 22. Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that Reinhardt discloses a hydraulic circuit control
device that maintains pulling force constant but does not disclose systems
that compensate for pressure changes in a hydraulic circuit, as recited in
claims 1 and 12. Br. 13. Appellants argue that Reinhardt does not disclose a
hydraulic system with a hydraulic circuit having a first hydraulic power unit
and a feed pump for feeding hydraulic fluid to adjust for changes in pressure
within the hydraulic circuit, wherein the feed pump is driven by a hydraulic
drive motor driven by a second hydraulic power unit, as claimed. Id.
Appellants’ arguments, which recite limitations of claims 1 and 12
and assert that Reinhardt does not disclose those limitations, do not apprise
us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Reinhardt does disclose those
limitations (Final Act. 4; Ans. 14—15, 16). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (approving of Board’s practice set forth in Ex Parte Frye of
requiring applicants to identify error in an Examiner’s rejections); Ex Parte
Frye, Appeal 2009-006013, 2010 WE 889747, at *4 (BPAI Feb. 26, 2010)
(precedential) (panel reviews rejections for error based on issues identified
by an appellant). Merely restating claim limitations and asserting that the
limitations are not found in the prior art does not identify error in a rejection.
See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We thus sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 and their dependent
claims, which are not argued separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Br. 18.
7
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 12—14 as anticipated by Kosek
The Examiner found that Kosek discloses a hydraulic system and
method having a first hydraulic power unit (cylinder 9) and a feed pump
(hydraulic pump 8) that is driven by a hydraulic drive motor 7 that is driven
by a second hydraulic pump 2 and electric motor 1 where the feed pump
supplies fluid to first hydraulic power unit 9, as claimed. Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that Kosek discloses an electrohydraulic press drive
but does not disclose a hydraulic system that adjusts for pressure changes in
a hydraulic circuit, as recited in claims 1 and 12. Br. 14. Appellants argue
that Kosek does not disclose a hydraulic system with a hydraulic circuit
having a first hydraulic power unit and a feed pump driven by a hydraulic
drive motor driven by a second hydraulic power unit to adjust for pressure
changes in a hydraulic circuit, as claimed. Id.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they merely recite
limitations of claims 1 and 12 and assert that Kosek does not disclose those
limitations without explaining why the Examiner’s findings that Kosek does
disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 12 (Final Act. 4; Ans. 14—15, 16) are
in error. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 and their
respective dependent claims, which are not argued separately. See Br. 18.
Claims 1—3, 8, 12—14, and 16 as anticipated by Satzler
The Examiner found that Satzler discloses a hydraulic system having
a first hydraulic power unit (actuators 28, 30, 32) and a feed pump (fluid
transfer device 68) that is driven by a hydraulic drive motor (fluid transfer
device 66) that is driven by second hydraulic pumps (free piston engine 12
and one of power modifying units 54, 56 and that feeds fluid to the first
hydraulic power unit, as claimed. Final Act. 4.
8
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
Appellants argue that Satzler discloses an energy conservation system
but not disclose a feed pump driven by a hydraulic drive motor driven by a
second hydraulic power unit to adjust for pressure changes in a hydraulic
circuit as claimed. Br. 15. Appellants argue that Satzler does not disclose a
hydraulic system including a hydraulic circuit having a first hydraulic power
unit and feed pump that is driven by a hydraulic motor driven by a second
hydraulic power unit, as recited in claims 1 and 12. Id.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they merely recite
limitations of claims 1 and 12 and assert that Satzler does not disclose those
limitations without explaining why the Examiner’s findings that Satzler does
disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 12 (Final Act. 4; Ans. 14—15) are in
error. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 and their respective
dependent claims, which are not argued separately. See Br. 18.
Claim 1, 9, 12, and 14 as anticipated by Endo
The Examiner found that Endo discloses a hydraulic system having a
hydraulic drive motor (first pump motor 16) driving a feed pump (second
pump motor 17) that feeds fluid to a hydraulic circuit(s) including hydraulic
pump (primary hydraulic pump 10) and the hydraulic motor via check valve
37 and the drive motor is operated selectively with a greater pressure and a
correspondingly smaller delivery rate than the feed pump. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that Endo discloses a pressurized fluid recovery or
reutilization system for operating accumulators but does not disclose a feed
pump driven by a hydraulic drive motor driven by a second hydraulic power
unit to adjust for pressure changes in a hydraulic circuit, as claimed. Br. 16.
Appellants also argue that Endo does not disclose a hydraulic system with a
first hydraulic power unit and feed pump, as recited in claims 1 and 12. Id.
9
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they merely recite
limitations of claims 1 and 12 and assert that Endo does not disclose those
limitations without explaining why the Examiner’s findings that Endo does
disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 12 (Final Act. 5; Ans. 14—15) are in
error. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 and their respective
dependent claims, which are not argued separately. See Br. 18.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 12—14 as anticipated by Macit
The Examiner found that Macit discloses a hydraulic system including
a hydraulic circuit including control blocks 8 and a first hydraulic power unit
(hydraulic device 10) and a feed pump (second variable-delivery pump 7)
that feeds hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic circuit and first power unit 10 and
is driven by a hydraulic drive motor 6 and a second hydraulic power unit
(variable displacement hydraulic pump 2), as claimed. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that Macit discloses a drive for a mobile operating
device but does not disclose a feed pump driven by a hydraulic drive motor
driven by a second hydraulic power unit to adjust for pressure changes in a
hydraulic circuit, as claimed. Br. 17. Appellants argue that Macit does not
disclose a hydraulic system including a first hydraulic power unit and a feed
pump that adjusts for changes in pressure, as recited in claims 1 and 12. Id.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they merely recite
limitations of claims 1 and 12 and assert that Macit does not disclose those
limitations without explaining why the Examiner’s findings that Macit does
disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 12 (Final Act. 5; Ans. 14—15, 16) are
in error. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 and their
respective dependent claims, which are not argued separately. See Br. 18.
10
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
Claims 1—5, 8, 10—14, 16, 17, and 20 as anticipated by Rose
The Examiner found that Rose discloses a hydraulic pump (main
hydraulic unit 12) that drives a hydraulic drive motor 18 that drives a fixed
displacement feed pump 16 that supplies fluid to a circuit that includes a
second pump and drive motor. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that Rose discloses a hydraulic fluid system with a
remote charge pump but does not disclose a feed pump driven by a hydraulic
drive motor driven by a second hydraulic power unit to adjust for pressure
changes in a hydraulic circuit, as claimed. Br. 17—18. Appellants also argue
that Macit does not disclose a hydraulic system having a hydraulic circuit
with a first hydraulic power unit and a feed pump, as recited in claims 1 and
12. Id. at 18.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they merely recite
limitations of claims 1 and 12 and assert that Rose does not disclose those
limitations without explaining why the Examiner’s findings that Rose does
disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 12 (Final Act. 5; Ans. 14—15, 16) are
in error. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 and their
respective dependent claims, which are not argued separately. See Br. 18.
Claim 7 as anticipated by, or unpatentable over, Rose
Appellants argue that claims 2—5, 7—11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are
patentable due to their dependence from their respective independent claims.
Br. 18. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Rose,
we sustain the rejection of claim 7, which depends indirectly from claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
11
Appeal 2015-002501
Application 12/820,315
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 9, 11, and 14, and we reverse the
rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 for indefiniteness.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—3, 8, 12—14, and 16 as anticipated
by Reinhardt.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 12—14 as anticipated by
Kosek.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—3, 8, 12—14, and 16 as anticipated
by Satzler.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 9, 12, and 14 as anticipated by
Endo.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 12—14 as anticipated
by Macit.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16, 17, and 20 as
anticipated by Rose.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12