Ex Parte Truong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12833771 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
12/833,771 07/09/2010 Hung Truong 09/115 7187
7590 03/29/2016
LEON D. ROSEN
FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN
Suite 1220
10960 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
EXAMINER
KRAFT, LOGAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2016 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 HUNG TRUONG, ANGEL CHING, and TARIQ LATIF

____________________

Appeal 2014-002423
Application 12/833,771
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Hung Truong et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Barksdale, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-002423
Application 12/833,771

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal, with disputed
limitations italicized for emphasis.
1. A hydraulic actuator comprising:
a housing (22);
a piston (12) that is slideable in forward and rearward
directions in the housing, said piston having a first forward-
facing piston surface (44) and a first rearward-facing piston
surface (40), and said piston having an output part (17) that
extends outside said housing;
a pusher (24) that is contained in said housing and that is
slideable in forward and rearward directions in the housing, said
pusher having a first-forward-facing pusher surface (50) and
having a rearward-facing pusher surface (48);
said housing having a first port (A) that is coupled to said
first piston surface (44), so when pressured fluid is applied only
to said first port (A) said pressured fluid moves said piston
rearward to a rear position (12R);
said housing having a second port (C) that is coupled to
said pusher rear-facing surface (48) and said piston rear-facing
surface (40), so when pressured fluid is applied only to said
second port (C) said pressured fluid moves said pusher forward
(by C3) against a first housing surface (52) and moves said piston
forward (by C2) against a second housing surface (46);
said piston and pusher surfaces being chosen so when
equal pressured fluid is applied to said first and second ports (A,
C), said pusher is urged forward (C3) to abut a rearward-facing
surface (52) of said housing and said piston is urged rearward
and moves to a neutral position (12N);
at least part of said pusher lies around said piston, said
piston has a rearward-facing ledge (56), and said pusher has a
forward-extending narrow extension (54) that lies around said
piston and that abuts said ledge when pressured fluid is applied
only to said second port (C).

Appeal 2014-002423
Application 12/833,771

3
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Hedman (US 8,312,618 B2; iss. Nov. 20, 2012).

OPINION
Claims 1 and 3 — Indefiniteness
Appellants chose not to present arguments rebutting the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3 as indefinite, and therefore, we summarily affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims 1 and 3 — Anticipation
The Examiner found, inter alia, that when equal pressure is applied to
Hedman’s first and second ports 108, 109, pusher 521 is urged forwardly to
abut a rearward-facing surface of the housing (at 102), and piston 503 is
urged rearwardly to move into a neutral position, as required by independent
claim 1. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Hedman, Figs. 2a, 2b); Ans. 2–3 (referencing
the Examiner’s annotated Figure 5 of Hedman). Appellants’ sole argument
is that “Hedman’s Fig. 3 shows that when pressured fluid is applied to . . .
ports 108 and 109, . . . piston 303 and pusher [5]21 move against each other
and against a single housing part 305a, not against two different housing
parts.” Br. 3. The Examiner correctly responds that although claim 1
requires the piston and pusher to contact first and second housing parts when
pressurized fluid is applied only to second port C, claim 1 does not require
the piston and pusher to contact first and second housing parts when
Appeal 2014-002423
Application 12/833,771

4
pressurized fluid is applied to both first and second ports A and C. Ans. 2–
3; Br. (Claims App.). Moreover, Appellants’ argument does not apprise us
of error in the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Appellants’ sole argument is that
“[c]laim 3 describes the pusher having a forward-facing surface (50, Fig. 2)”
and “[t]he forward-facing surface (50) engages a housing rearward-facing
surface[] (52) in the pusher neutral position (A+C) 1 which is rearward of
Fig. 2 position.” Br. 3. However, Appellants’ statement describing claim 3
does not constitute a separate argument for the patentability of dependent
claim 3 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Lovin, 99
USPQ2d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably
interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art”).
Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2014-002423
Application 12/833,771

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED