Hideaki Yamagata et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 25, 201914302520 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/302,520 06/12/2014 Hideaki YAMAGATA 36856.3017 3371 54066 7590 10/25/2019 MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP 1800 Alexander Bell Drive SUITE 200 Reston, VA 20191 EXAMINER DO, HAILEY KYUNG AE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2019 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): JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM cbennett@kbiplaw.com uspto@kbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HIDEAKI YAMAGATA, TAKENOBU MAEDA, and YUZO HIGASHIYAMA Appeal 2019-000172 Application 14/302,520 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Appellant,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 2–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(b) and the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-000172 Application 14/302,520 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The Specification’s disclosure “relates to a valve configured to control excess flow of fluid in a forward direction and a fuel cell system including the valve.” Spec. ¶1. It discloses “a valve that significantly reduces or prevents displacement to a side of a valve body portion and blocks excess flow of fluid in a forward direction even when a peripheral edge portion of a diaphragm is pressed, and also . . . a fuel cell system including the valve.” Id. ¶10. The Claims Claims 2–17 are rejected. Final Act. 1. Claims 18–20 are pending but withdrawn from consideration. Id. No other claims are pending. Id. Claim 2, the sole independent claim, is illustrative and reproduced below. 2. A valve comprising: a valve housing including an inlet port and an outlet port; a diaphragm including a center portion, a peripheral edge portion located outside of the center portion, and a connecting portion connecting the center portion and the peripheral edge portion, the peripheral edge portion being located on the valve housing and defining a valve chamber together with the valve housing, and the center portion and the connecting portion being displaced due to pressure of a fluid in the valve chamber; a pressure receiving plate that is located on the center portion of the diaphragm; a valve body that is arranged in the inlet port and is deformed in response to displacement of the diaphragm to block or release inflow of the fluid into the valve chamber through the inlet port; Appeal 2019-000172 Application 14/302,520 3 a pusher located on a portion of the center portion of the diaphragm that opposes the valve body; and a cap configured to hold the peripheral edge portion of the diaphragm between the cap and the valve housing with a space being located between the cap and the pressure receiving plate, no solid structure is located in the space between the cap and the pressure receiving plate, and the cap including a hole in a center area of the cap; wherein the inlet port communicates with the valve chamber when the pusher pushes down a portion of the valve body in the inlet port; and the connecting portion of the diaphragm has a wave shape extending from a side of the peripheral edge portion toward a side of the center portion such that the connecting portion first projects toward the valve body, and next projects toward the cap. Id. at 23. The Examiner’s Rejections The rejections before us, all of which are pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA), are: 1. claims 2, 8–13, and 15–17 as unpatentable over Cowles,2 Yamamoto,3 and Guala4 (Final Act. 3); 2. claims 3, 6, and 14 as unpatentable over Cowles, Yamamoto, Guala, and Jerman5 (id. at 6); 3. claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over Cowles, Yamamoto, Guala, and Pratt6 (id. at 8); and 2 US 4,660,597, issued Apr. 28, 1987 (“Cowles”). 3 US 2008/0099081 A1, published May 1, 2008 (“Yamamoto”). 4 US 6,537,258 B1, issued Mar. 25, 2003 (“Guala”). 5 US 5,177,579, issued Jan. 5, 1993 (“Jerman”). 6 US 6,321,776 B1, issued Nov. 27, 2001 (“Pratt”). Appeal 2019-000172 Application 14/302,520 4 4. claim 7 as unpatentable over Cowles, Yamamoto, Guala, and Fiebig7 (id. at 9). DISCUSSION The Examiner found that Cowles discloses all of the subject matter of claim 2 except for two limitations, namely “no solid structure is located in the space between the cap and the pressure receiving plate” and “the connecting portion of the diaphragm has a wave shape extending from a side of the peripheral edge portion toward a side of the center portion such that the connecting portion first projects toward the valve body, and next projects toward the cap.” Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner found that Yamamoto teaches the former and Guala teaches the latter and that modifying Cowles in view of those teachings would have been obvious. Id. at 4–5. Appellant argues the Examiner has made several errors with respect to the modification of Cowles in view of Yamamoto. Appeal Br. 6–21. First, Appellant argues that Yamamoto fails to teach the limitation for which it is cited, i.e., “no solid structure is located in the space between the cap and the pressure receiving plate.” Id. at 7–8. Yamamoto discloses “an adjustment valve used for fluid transport pipes that require flow regulation.” Yamamoto ¶1. Figure 1 of Yamamoto is reproduced below. 7 US 7,947,094 B2, issued May 24, 2011 (“Fiebig”). Appeal 2019-000172 Application 14/302,520 5 Figure 1 of Yamamoto, reproduced above, shows a cross-sectional view of an adjustment valve in an opened state. The Examiner found that this figure “teaches a diaphragm valve having a space (see fig. 1) being located between a cap (3) and a diaphragm (6) having a pressure receiving plate (8), a spring (9) between the diaphragm and a valve seat thereby having no solid structure being located in the space between the cap (3) and the pressure receiving plate (8), and the cap (3) including a hole (17) in a center area of the cap (3).” Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). However, Yamamoto’s adjust valve includes two diaphragms, “first diaphragm 4” and “second diaphragm 6.” Yamamoto ¶11. It is a peripheral edge of the first diaphragm 4, not of the second diaphragm 6, that together with valve housing 1 forms valve chamber 10. Id. Thus, Appellant argues: In contrast to Appellant’s claimed invention, Yamamoto teaches that the diaphragm 6 is sandwiched between the cylinder 2 and the bonnet 3 such that the diaphragm 6 is located and Appeal 2019-000172 Application 14/302,520 6 spaced away from the valve chamber 10, and that the valve chamber 10 is defined by the diaphragm 4 and the upper portion of the main body 1 (see, for example, paragraph [0011] and Fig. 1 (reproduced below) of Yamamoto). That is, as shown in Fig. 1 of Yamamoto . . . , the valve chamber 10 is not and could not possibly have been defined by the diaphragm 6 as required by Appellant's Claim 2 because in Fig. 1 Yamamoto, the diaphragm 6 is located away from the valve chamber 10. The configuration shown in Fig. 1 of Yamamoto where the diaphragm 6 is located away from the valve chamber 10 and the diaphragm 6 does not define the valve chamber 10, is completely different from the configuration shown in Fig. 3 of Cowles where the diaphragm 46 defines the valve chamber 52. Appeal Br. 7–8. We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Claim 2 recites “a diaphragm including a center portion [and] a peripheral edge portion . . . being located on the valve housing and defining a valve chamber together with the valve housing.” Yamamoto’s second diaphragm 6 plays no role in forming the chamber 10. Instead, Yamamoto’s first diaphragm 4 does. However, Yamamoto’s first diaphragm includes solid structure above it. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify Cowles by having no solid structure in the space between cap 36 and pressure plate 58 because Cowles places spring 72 in that space to engage plate 58 to control opening and closing of flapper valve 84. Cowles, 4:66– 5:40, 7:50–8:66. Moving spring 72 would change Cowles’s principle of operation. Reply Br. 4–5; Appeal Br. 8–9. The Examiner does not dispute this assertion. Ans. 11–12. For this reason, we reverse the rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Cowles, Yamamoto, and Guala. The deficiency in the rejection of Appeal 2019-000172 Application 14/302,520 7 claim 2 permeates through the rejections of all rejected claims. Accordingly, we reverse all rejections on all claims. SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 8–13, 15– 17 103(a) Cowles, Yamamoto, Guala 2, 8–13, 15– 17 3, 6, 14 §103(a) Cowles, Yamamoto, Guala, Jerman 3, 6, 14 4, 5 §103(a) Cowles, Yamamoto, Guala, Pratt 4, 5 7 §103(a) Cowles, Yamamoto, Guala, Fiebig 7 Overall Outcome 2–17 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation