Ex Parte Schultz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 201311550775 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL W. SCHULTZ and GLENN R. BERGUM ____________________ Appeal 2011-005826 Application 11/550,775 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005826 Application 11/550,775 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 3-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A system for controlling gas pressure to a gas-fired appliance, the system compnsmg: a modulating gas valve for supplying a controlled amount of gas to a burner unit; a multi or variable speed inducer fan situated downstream of the burner unit and configured to produce a combustion air flow in the burner unit and out through a vent pipe; a pressure reducing element situated downstream of the burner unit and in fluid communication with the inducer fan and the vent pipe, the pressure reducing element configured to output at least one pneumatic signal that is related to said combustion air flow, the pressure reducing element providing the at least one pneumatic signal to the modulating gas valve, wherein the modulating gas valve is configured to amplify the at least one pneumatic signal and modulate the amount of gas supplied to the burner unit based on the amplified at least one pneumatic signal; and an appliance controller for receiving one or more control signals from a thermostat, and for controlling the speed of the inducer fan based at least in part on the one or more control signals. Appeal 2011-005826 Application 11/550,775 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Torborg US 4,373,897 Feb. 15, 1983 Vrolijk US 5,520,533 May 28, 1996 Jaeschke US 2004/0043345 A1 Mar. 4, 2004 REJECTION Appellants seek our review of the rejection of claims 1 and 3-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Vrolijk, Jaeschke, and Torborg. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Vrolijk discloses most of the limitations of independent claim 1. Ans. 4-5, 8-10. The Examiner finds that Vrolijk discloses a modulating gas valve 15 and a pressure reducing element 34 configured to output at least one pneumatic signal related to combustion air flow. See id. at 4; Vrolijk, col. 3, ll. 21-50. The Examiner finds that Vrolijk’s modulating gas valve is not “configured to amplify the at least one pneumatic signal,” as required by claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds, however, that Torborg discloses a modulating gas valve configured to amplify at least one pneumatic signal. Id. at 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that a stack orifice 70 of Torborg serves to amplify the signal. Id. Appellants argue that the cited references do not teach or suggest a system with a modulating gas valve “configured to amplify the at least one pneumatic signal.” App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that Torborg’s gas valve 100 does not include Torborg’s orifice 70. Id. at 10. Consequently, Appellants argue, the Examiner’s contention that the orifice 70 amplifies a Appeal 2011-005826 Application 11/550,775 4 pneumatic signal, even if accurate, cannot support the finding that Torborg discloses a modulating gas valve configured to amplify a pneumatic signal. Id. We agree with Appellants on this point. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner maintains that “the gas valve has an orifice (70) that measures pressures adjacent thereto.” Ans. 13. Appellants respond that “the stack orifice (70) of Torborg does not appear to measure pressure adjacent to the gas valve (100).” Reply Br. 2. Again, we agree with Appellants on this point. In response to Appellants’ initial arguments, the Examiner also contends that Torborg’s disclosure “indicates” amplification of a pneumatic signal because Torborg is “capable of substituting direct sensing of a flow rate with pressures sensed at appropriate locations.” Ans. 13. The Examiner similarly contends that “it is common knowledge that signals must be amplified in order to be correctly read” in applications like Torborg’s preferred embodiment that controls gas supply based on a pressure signal. Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner does not support these findings or clearly explain how they establish that Torborg discloses a modulating gas valve that amplifies a pneumatic signal. Reply Br. 2-3. We agree with Appellants on this point too. Further in response to Appellants’ initial arguments, the Examiner contends that Vrolijk implicitly discloses that its gas valve 15 amplifies a pneumatic signal. Ans. 14. The Examiner bases this contention on the fact that a chain of events triggered by the pneumatic signal from the pressure reducing element 34 causes an increase in pressure within chambers of valve 15. Id. This explanation does not persuade us that Vrolijk’s gas valve 15 amplifies the pressure signal from pressure reducing element 34. The Appeal 2011-005826 Application 11/550,775 5 pressure rise in the chambers of valve 15 occurs when a valve 27, 29 closes and isolates the chambers of valve 15 from the pneumatic signal generated by pressure reducing element 34. See Vrolijk, col. 3, ll. 41-50, FIGURE. While the pneumatic signal from the pressure reducing element 34 is isolated from the chambers of the valve 15 by valve 27, 29, a separate fluid source, specifically gas inlet 16, causes the pressure increase identified by the Examiner. See id. col. 3, ll. 1-12, 41-50, FIGURE. Thus, while the pressure rise may coincide with certain values of the pneumatic signal from pressure reducing element 34, the pressure rise is not an amplification of the pneumatic signal from pressure reducing element 34. Also in response to Appellants’ initial arguments, the Examiner notes that the background section of Vrolijk mentions that German utility model 83 00 157 discloses that “the regulated output pressure of the airflow controller is supplied to the gas valve through a pneumatic amplifier therein as its control signal.” Ans. 14. This quotation does not persuade us that the prior art discloses a modulating gas valve that amplifies a pneumatic signal. The quotation indicates that gas pressure flows through the pneumatic amplifier on its way to the valve, indicating that the valve receives the pressure already amplified, not that the valve amplifies the pressure. For the foregoing reasons, consistent with Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the cited references teach or suggest a system with a modulating gas valve “configured to amplify the at least one pneumatic signal,” as required by claim 1. See App. Br. 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejection of dependent claims 3-12, 21, and 24. Appeal 2011-005826 Application 11/550,775 6 Regarding claims 13-20, 22, and 23, Appellants argue that the cited references fail to disclose the claim 13 limitation “wherein the modulating gas valve is configured to amplify the differential pressure” and the claim 14 limitation “amplifying a measure related to the difference between the a first pneumatic signal and the second pneumatic signal.” App. Br. 15, 16. To support findings that the cited references disclose these limitations of independent claims 13 and 14, the Examiner cites the same portions of the references and provides the same reasoning the Examiner uses to support the findings that the cited references disclose the claim 1 limitation that “the modulating gas valve is configured to amplify the at least one pneumatic signal.” See Ans. 9, 10, 16-18. For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the cited references disclose the claim 13 limitation “wherein the modulating gas valve is configured to amplify the differential pressure” and the claim 14 limitation “amplifying a measure related to the difference between the a first pneumatic signal and the second pneumatic signal.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 13 and 14, or the rejection of dependent claims 15-20, 22, and 23. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-24. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation