Ex parte Walter et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 4, 1998

08256949 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 4, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 27, 1994. This application is a1
National Stage application under 35 USC § 371 of PCT/GB93/00284, filed
February 11, 1993.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID T. WALTER, MILTON KEYNES,
SIMON P. DOMMETT and BARRY PEARSON
_____________
Appeal No. 98-0330
Application 08/256,9491
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, COHEN and FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 14,
18 to 22, 24 and 26, all of the claims remaining in the
Appeal No. 98-0330
Application 08/256,949
This ground of rejection was set forth in the first Office action2
(Paper No. 6) but was not explicitly repeated in the final rejection (Paper
No. 12). Nevertheless, appellants have responded to it in their brief, and it
was evidently the examiner's intention to include it in the final rejection.
2
application.
The appealed claims are drawn to a brake device, and a
copy of them is presented in the appendix to appellants'
brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Meakin 2,510,125 Jun. 06, 1950
Schneider 4,982,736 Jan. 08, 1991
Pearson EP 0 219,938 Apr. 29, 1987
(European Patent)
Claims 14, 18 to 22, 24 and 26 stand finally rejected as
unpatentable over Pearson in view of Meakin and Schneider,
under 35 USC § 103.2
The examiner takes the position that it would have been
obvious, in view of Meakin, to have utilized quick connectors
instead of the flexible hoses (215) disclosed by Pearson, and,
in view of Schneider, to have provided non-return valves
Appeal No. 98-0330
Application 08/256,949
Since appellants are no longer claiming non-return valves, Schneider3
would appear to be superfluous, but we have still considered it in reaching
our decision herein.
3
therein.3
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellants' brief and the examiner's
answer, we
conclude that the appealed claims are patentable over the
prior art applied in the first rejection.
We note initially that, as pointed out by appellants on
page 10 of their brief, neither Pearson, Meakin nor "Schneider
discloses or suggests an electrically powered cooling fan (as
recited in claim 21) or electrically energizable cooling means
(as recited in claim 26). The rejection of claims 21, 22 and
26 therefor cannot be sustained.
Turning to independent claims 14 and 24, we agree with
appellants that even if the references were combined, they
would not meet the claimed structure. Meakin discloses a
connector for fluid lines which the block 6 containing the
sockets 5 may be attached to a fix member, such as a panel or
bulkhead (col. 4, lines 44 to 48), while the block 1
Appeal No. 98-0330
Application 08/256,949
4
containing mating plugs 4 is attached to the ends of the fluid
lines (hoses) 41. The con-nector is uncoupled by jerking on
the hoses 41 (col. 5, lines 8 to 12). Since Meakin's
connector is disclosed as being between hoses 41 and fixed
conduits 8, we do not consider that one of ordinary skill
would have found it obvious to utilize the Meakin connector
instead of Pearson's hoses 215, as proposed by the
examiner, but if anything would have used the Meakin apparatus
to connect Pearson's hoses 215 to manifold 210. The resulting
structure would not respond to all the limitations of
independent claims 14 and 24, however, because relative
displacement of the two halves 2, 4 of the Pearson housing
would not effect discon-nection of the braking means 220 from
the pressure fluid connection element 210 (claim 14), and the
plug member would be on the hose rather than on the front
housing 2 (claim 24).
The Schneider patent does not supply the deficiencies
noted with regard to Meakin.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claims 14 and
24, and of claims 18 to 22 and 26 dependent thereon, will not
be sustained.
Appeal No. 98-0330
Application 08/256,949
5
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 14, 18 to 22, 24
and 26 is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 98-0330
Application 08/256,949
6
Seidel, Gonda, Lavorgna & Monaco
Two Penn Center Plaza
Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19102