Jay Griswold et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2020003897 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021)

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.
15/613,910 06/05/2017 Jay P. Griswold 511199 6164
53609 7590 02/02/2021
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
FOX, JOHN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAY P. GRISWOLD and
TODD D. TIEFENBACH
____________

Appeal 2020-003897
Application 15/613,910
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3–5, 12, 13, and 21. Claims 6–11 and 14–20 are
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references the Specification (“Spec.,” filed June 5,
2017), Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Aug. 7, 2019), Advisory
Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed Oct. 18, 2019), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed Jan. 7, 2020), Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 28, 2020), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 28, 2020). Appellant identifies Robertshaw
Controls Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003897
Application 15/613,910

2
CLAIMED INVENTON
Appellant’s invention relates to a valve comprising three valve bodies
“capable of routing water in a refrigerator to different features, such as one
or more icemakers, a water dispensers, and/or a pitcher filler.” Spec. ¶ 5.
Claim 3, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is the sole
independent claim on appeal, and is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
3. A triple valve, comprising:
[(a)] a first valve body having a first end and a second end;
[(b)] a second valve body having a first end and a second end;
[(c)] a third valve body having a first end and a second end; and
[(d)] a central core pin that mechanically connects the first
valve body, the second valve body, and the third valve body;
[(e)] wherein the second valve body is disposed between the
first valve body and the third valve body;
[(f)] wherein the second valve body extends beyond a plane
defined by the first end of the first valve body or by the first end
of the third valve body;
[(g)] wherein the central core pin defines a continuous interior
channel that is in fluid communication with the first valve body,
the second valve body, and the third valve body; and
[(h)] wherein each of the first valve body, the second valve
body, and the third valve body comprise:
[(1)] a port at the second end;
[(2)] a central bore in fluid communication with the port;
and
[(3)] a passage disposed exterior to the central bore, the
passage being in fluid communication with the continuous
interior channel and with the central bore.

Appeal 2020-003897
Application 15/613,910

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and/or
102(a)(2) as anticipated by Dyck (US 3,788,344, iss. Jan. 29, 1974). Final
Act. 3–4.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Dyck and Legris (US 4,782,852, iss. Nov. 8, 1988). Final Act. 4–5.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Dyck, Legris, and Sizer (US 3,556,147, iss. Jan. 19, 1971). Final
Act. 5.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because the prior art
does not teach or suggest a triple valve in which each of the first, second,
and third valve bodies has “a passage disposed exterior to [a] central bore,
the passage being in fluid communication with the continuous interior
channel and with the central bore,” as recited in limitation (h)(3) of claim 3.
Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 5–7. The recitation that the “passage [is]
disposed exterior to the central bore” requires the passage to be distinct from
the central bore. Our interpretation is consistent with Figure 2 and
paragraph 30 of the Specification, which describe central bore 52 and
passage 40 as separate conduits.
Dyck discloses stacked valve systems comprising valve bodies 100,
200, 300, 400, 500. Dyck 3:51–52, 4:3–5, Fig. 2. Each valve body includes
main body portion 11 provided with central longitudinal conduit bore 12.
Dyck 4:21–23, 4:66–67, Figs. 2–3. Hollow valve barrel 13 projects from a
Appeal 2020-003897
Application 15/613,910

4
face of body portion 11 and hollow projecting stem 14 projects from an
opposite face of body portion 11. Id. at 4:23–29, Figs. 2–4. Hollow valve
barrel 13 communicates with bore 12 via co-extensive transverse bore 61,
and hollow projecting stem 14 communicates with bore 12 via co-extensive
transverse bore 61. Id. at 4:67–5:3, Fig. 4. Transverse bore 61 includes
upper, enlarged valve bore 62 and inwardly sloping valve seat bore 63. Id.
at 5:3–6, Fig. 4.
In rejecting claim 3 as anticipated by Dyck, the Examiner finds that
Dyck teaches valve bodies 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 that each includes
passage 62 exterior to central bore 61 in fluid communication with interior
channel 12 and central bore 61, as required by claim 3. See Final Act. 3; see
also Adv. Act. 2 (finding that bore/chamber 62 is a different structure from
bore 61). However, as set forth above, passage 62 is an enlarged valve bore
portion of transverse bore 61, not a passage exterior to transverse bore 61, as
required by claim 3. See Dyck 5:3–6 (“Transverse bore 61 includes an
upper, enlarged valve bore 62[.]” (emphasis omitted)), see also id. at Fig. 4
(depicting bore 61 as including enlarged valve bore 62).
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 3 and
dependent claim 21 as anticipated by Dyck.
Obviousness
The Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 fail to remedy the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claim 3
as anticipated by Dyck. Appeal Br. 8. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same
reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 3.

Appeal 2020-003897
Application 15/613,910

5
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
3, 21 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) Dyck 3, 21
4, 5 103 Dyck, Legris 4, 5
12, 13 103 Dyck, Legris, Sizer 12, 13
Overall
Outcome
3–5, 12, 13,
21

REVERSED