10895717 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2012)

Ex Parte Stanczak

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 29, 2012

10895717 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2012)

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. 10/895,717 07/21/2004 Edmund A. Stanczak 60,130-2141; 04ARM0243 8726 26096 7590 03/01/2012 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER BELLINGER, JASON R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3617 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte EDMUND A. STANCZAK ____________________ Appeal 2009-010623 Application 10/895,717 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Edmund A. Stanczak (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 and 20. Claim 19 was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but was indicated as allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2009-010623 Application 10/895,717 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention pertains to a tire inflation system for automatically maintaining a vehicle’s tire pressure within a certain range. See Spec. para. [0007]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A tire inflation system comprising: a pressure line connectable to a tire; a control valve in fluid communication with a fluid supply wherein said control valve is operable to automatically maintain said pressure line at a desired minimum pressure; and a pressure relief valve in fluid communication with said pressure line, said pressure relieve [sic] valve automatically venting to atmosphere when pressure in said pressure line exceeds a maximum threshold pressure. THE REJECTIONS The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Jensen (US 5,429,167, iss. Jul. 4, 1995); 2. Claims 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen; 3. Claims 3-5, 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen and Bland (US 4,387,931, iss. Jun. 14, 1983); and 4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen and Ingram (US 6,105,645, iss. Aug. 22, 2000). Appeal 2009-010623 Application 10/895,717 3 OPINION The rejection of claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated by Jensen Independent claim 1 calls for a control valve “wherein said control valve is operable to automatically maintain said pressure line [connectable to a tire] at a desired minimum pressure.” The Examiner found that Jensen’s pressure regulator 92 is “a control valve.” Ans. 3. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s findings regarding the claimed control valve, and the automatic- operability thereof. See App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant argues that Jensen’s pressure regulator 92 “is not capable of automatically operating to maintain the pre-set pressure [in the tire pressure line].” Reply Br. 3. The Examiner, without elaboration, maintains that, once a particular button is pushed to activate Jensen’s system, “[c]ontrol valve 92 then automatically maintains a minimum pressure in the pressure lines.” Ans. 6. The Examiner does not adequately explain, and it is not readily apparent, how Jensen’s pressure regulator 92 is operable to automatically maintain a pressure line connectable to a tire at a desired minimum pressure, as called for by claim 1. Id. As such, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claim 1, and of its dependent claim 2, as anticipated by Jensen. The rejection of claims 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 as being unpatentable over Jensen Independent claim 6 recites “said control including a flow valve that automatically opens when fluid pressure in said hose assembly [connectable with a tire] falls below a predetermined minimum pressure to maintain fluid pressure in the at least one first and second tires at said predetermined minimum pressure.” The Examiner’s initial articulation of the rejection of claim 6 is directed to the obviousness of a second pressure relief valve. Ans. Appeal 2009-010623 Application 10/895,717 4 3-4. Appellant argued that Jensen does not disclose a flow valve that automatically opens when pressure falls below a minimum pressure. App. Br. 5. In response, the Examiner found that, once Jensen’s system is activated by pressing a button, valve 69 “will automatically open if the pressure sensed in the pressure line and/or tires is below a minimum pressure.” Ans. 7. However, Jensen discloses that the opening of valve 69 is controlled by air pressure supplied to control port 89 via conduit 88, which in turn is connected to pushbutton-actuated pneumatic valve 87. Jensen, col. 6, ll. 36-56; fig. 5. The control port 89 on valve 69 is not directly connected to either conduit 81 or conduit 96, which serve as the tire pressure sensing lines. See fig. 5. The Examiner did not find that valve 69 is indirectly connected to the tire pressure line to automatically operate the valve due to sensed pressure, and such is not immediately apparent to us. Thus, we cannot agree with the Examiner’s finding that Jensen’s valve 69 will automatically open if the pressure sensed in the pressure line or tires is below a minimum pressure. We thus do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 or of claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 17, which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Jensen. Claim 16 depends from independent claim 1, the rejection of which is discussed above, and therefore includes the control valve limitation. Independent claim 18 recites a control valve limitation substantially similar to that of claim 1. The Examiner’s articulated obviousness rejection for claims 16 and 18 does not cure the underlying defect regarding the control valve findings discussed above. See Ans. 3-4. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 16, 18, and 20 (which depends from claim 18). Appeal 2009-010623 Application 10/895,717 5 The rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 11, and 15 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Bland, and the rejection of claim 13 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Ingram We do not sustain the rejections of claims 3-5, 7, 11, 13, and 15, each of which depends from one of the independent claims addressed above. The Examiner’s articulated rejections do not cure the underlying deficiencies in the rejections of the independent claims. See Ans. 4-5, 10. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18 and 20 is reversed. REVERSED nlk