Ex Parte Wygnanski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

12376918 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/376,918 07/07/2010 Wladyslaw Wygnanski
25315 7590 09/14/2016
LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC
701 FIFTH A VENUE
SUITE4800
SEATTLE, WA 98104
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CAUN-1-1002 1131
EXAMINER
RASHID, MAHBUBUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WLADYSLA W WYGNANSKI, DAVID CEBON,
FRANK KIENHOFER, and ROBERT PRESCOTT
Appeal2014-009970
Application 12/37 6,918
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wladyslaw Wygnanski et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-9. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-009970
Application 12/37 6,918
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, represents the claimed
subject matter, with the key disputed limitation italicized.
1. An air braking unit for use in an air braking system, the air
breaking unit comprising:
an inlet for receiving, in use, compressed air from a central
source;
at least one first valve arranged to selectively allow
compressed air from the inlet to enter a wheel brake chamber in
use;
at least one second valve arranged to selectively allow air
from the brake chamber to be released via an outlet to the
atmosphere in use; and
control means for controlling the first and second valves
to operate to selectively control the air pressure in the brake
chamber in use,
wherein the at least one first valve and at least one second
valve are located at a vehicle wheel.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pannbacker (US 4,740,041; iss. Apr. 26, 1988) and Oberg
(US 3,980,350; iss. Sept. 14, 1976).
II. Claims 1 and 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wachi (US 6,050,653; iss. Apr. 18, 2000) and Oberg.
III. Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Frank (US 2001/0033105 Al; pub. Oct. 25, 2001) and
Oberg.
2
Appeal2014-009970
Application 12/37 6,918
Rejection I
ANALYSIS
Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding that Oberg discloses "the
at least one first valve and the at least one second valve [being] located [at
the] wheel[s]," as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 19-22; see
also Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that Oberg only shows the location of
the valves in a block diagram and "[ n Jo aspect of a block diagram can be
said to teach a location of valves, it simply shows them as a part of the
functioning system." Id. at 20. Appellants further argue that there is no
textual support for the Examiner's finding that the valves are located at the
wheels in Oberg. Id. at 22.
In the Answer, the Examiner reasons that Oberg discloses the claimed
location of the valves because Oberg teaches that each of the valve
arrangements is coupled to a brake line of a wheel or brake cylinder. Ans. 5,
6. In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner is ignoring the requirement
that the valves be "located at the wheel" in finding that valve assemblies on
a brake line are necessarily located at the wheel. Reply Br. 11-14.
Appellants further argue that, in Figure 1 of Oberg, "a length of brake line is
clearly shown separating the valve 6 from the brake cylinder and still further
from the wheel d." Id. at 12.
Appellants have the better position. Although the Specification does
not provide an express definition for "located at the vehicle wheel," the
Specification states that each valve assembly is located directly adjacent a
braking chamber 5 of a wheel. See Spec. p. 4, 11. 20-22 (stating "each wheel
and its associated brake chamber 5 is provided with its own respective brake
unit 20 attached thereto") and p. 5, 11. 30-32 (stating "the presence of the
3
Appeal2014-009970
Application 12/37 6,918
inlet and outlet valves directly adjacent the brake chamber 5, results in a
system which enables very precise control"). As to extrinsic evidence, the
term "at" is "used as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence in,
on, or near." See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/at (last
visited Aug. 28, 2016). Considering the evidence as a whole, we construe
the phrase "the at least one first valve and at least one second valve are
located at a vehicle wheel" to mean that at least one first valve and at least
one second valve are located in, on, or near the vehicle wheel.
Oberg discloses that each valve assembly 6 is located on a brake line
for a respective wheel (see Oberg, col. 1, 11. 10-13, col. 3, 11. 8-14, and col.
4, 11. 10-17; Fig. 1), but is silent regarding the location of the valve assembly
relative to each wheel. As such, Oberg fails to teach a valve assembly 6 that
is located in, on, or near the vehicle wheel, and thus, the Examiner's finding
that Oberg teaches "the at least one first valve and at least one second valve
are located at a vehicle wheel" is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. We do not agree with the Examiner that a valve assembly located
generally on a brake line is necessarily located in, on, or near a vehicle
wheel. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7 and 8 depending therefrom.
Rejections II and III
The Examiner also rejects independent claim 1 over Wachi or Frank,
and Oberg. Rejections II and III suffer from the same deficiency as the
Examiner's rejection based on Pannbacker and Oberg, namely, that the
Examiner errs in finding that Oberg discloses a first valve member and
second valve member located at a vehicle wheel. The Examiner's reliance
on Wachi or Frank does not cure this deficiency. Therefore, we do not
4
Appeal2014-009970
Application 12/37 6,918
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 5-9 as unpatentable over
Wachi and Oberg, and we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
1, 2, and 5-9 as unpatentable over Frank and Oberg.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannbacker and Oberg.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 5-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wachi and Oberg.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frank and Oberg.
REVERSED
5