Schuster, Michael J. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2019

15252396 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2019)

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.
15/252,396 08/31/2016 Michael J. Schuster 171401-1094 9309
24504 7590 10/28/2019
THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL ROAD, SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
EXAMINER
GARDNER, NICOLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2019 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ozzie.liggins@tkhr.com
uspatents@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. SCHUSTER and
LARRY L. SCHNEIDER
____________________

Appeal 2019-001771
Application 15/252,396
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–25.
Final Act. 3–8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Danco,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001771
Application 15/252,396

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, 21, and
22 depend from claim 1. Claims 13, 15, 16, 23, and 24 depend from claim
11. Claims 19, 20, and 25 depend from claim 17. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A lockable toilet fill valve, comprising:
a toilet fill valve comprising a float/arm assembly
comprising a float and an arm, the toilet fill valve configured to
be closed in response to the float/arm assembly being in a first
position, and the toilet fill valve configured to be open in
response to the float/arm assembly being in a second position;
and
a valve lock comprising a cam portion with a push/pull
cam, the valve lock configured to engage in an unlock position
and a lock position, the valve lock configured to restrict the
float/arm assembly in the first position when in the locked
position and allow movement of the float/arm assembly when
in the unlocked position.
REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Royalty (US 5,327,931, issued
July 12, 1994).
OPINION
Claim 1 recites “a valve lock comprising a cam portion with a
push/pull cam.” Claim 17 recites “a valve lock . . . , wherein the valve lock
comprises a cam portion including a push/pull cam.” Claim 11 recites a
method including steps of “moving the valve lock into the lock position by
pushing a cam portion of the valve lock . . . ; [and] moving the valve lock
into the unlock position by pulling the cam portion.”
Appeal 2019-001771
Application 15/252,396

3
The Examiner finds that Royalty teaches each element of the claims,
including the “push/pull cam” in claims 1 and 17, as well as the
corresponding operation in claim 11. Final Act. 3, 5, 6. The Examiner finds
that Royalty’s latch 36, which includes locking arm 94 and control arm 96,
corresponds to the recited “push/pull cam.” Id. at 3. The Examiner explains
that “‘cam’ is defined by Merriam-Webster as ‘a rotating or sliding piece . . .
in a mechanical linkage used especially in transforming rotary motion into
linear motion or vice versa.’” Id. The Examiner concludes that, “therefore
the rotating motion of the push/pull to allow or disrupt the linear motion of
the arm 24 [in Royalty] reads on this definition of a cam.” Id.; see also Ans.
7.
Appellant responds that “[t]he bendable wire that forms latch 36
including the control arm 96 is rotated instead of being a ‘push’ or ‘pull’
cam, as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 9, 11 (discussing
same for claims 11 and 17, respectively). Accordingly, the dispute concerns
what is required by the term “push/pull cam.”
The plain language of the term “push/pull cam” requires a cam
susceptible of being pushed and pulled (i.e., translated axially) to actuate a
mechanism, as opposed to one that is rotated to actuate a mechanism. This
interpretation is consistent with the Specification as discussed below.
Figures 31–34 of Appellant’s Specification are reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-001771
Application 15/252,396

4

Figures 31–34 illustrate “various views of a push/pull cam locking
mechanism in a toilet fill valve.” Spec. ¶ 11. Figures 31 and 33 illustrate
side and top views, respectively, of an unlocked position for cam 233.
Figures 32 and 34 illustrate side and top views, respectively, of a locked
position for cam 233.
Appeal 2019-001771
Application 15/252,396

5
The only embodiment identified in the Specification as having a
push/pull cam is that shown in Figures 31–34 above, where “push/pull cam
233” is pulled out of cover 116 to unlock float/arm assembly 100, 103, and
then pressed into the cover to lock the assembly in a closed state. Spec.
¶¶ 47–50 (emphasis added). The structure associated with the push/pull
actuation is a change in diameter along the axial extent of push/pull cam
233, which includes rod 236 and cam portion 239 having a larger diameter
than rod 236. Id. ¶ 47. Depending on how push/pull cam 233 is displaced
axially, arm 103 engages either rod 236 (Figures 31 and 33) or enlarged
diameter cam portion 239 (Figures 32 and 34).
Based on our interpretation of “push/pull cam,” which requires
push/pull actuation, rather than rotational actuation, we agree with Appellant
that Royalty does not teach the recited “push/pull cam.” Figures 1, 4, and 5
of Royalty are reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-001771
Application 15/252,396

6
Figure 1 illustrates Royalty’s “flush valve leakage prevention and detection
device.” Royalty 4:10. Figure 4 illustrates “the latch [from Figure 1] in a
locked position.” Id. at 4:19–20. Figure 5 illustrates “the latch [from Figure
1] in an unlocked position.” Id. at 4:22–23. Royalty describes flush valve
leakage prevention and detection device 10 maintaining float arm 24
connected to water inlet valve assembly 12 in a raised position to prevent
opening of the valve assembly when the water level in toilet tank 16 drops
due to leakage between flush cycles. Id. at 2:28–34, 4:27–43. The device
10 includes latch 36 for locking float arm 24 in a raised position. Id. at
4:54–64. Latch 36 includes a rod bent into sections 94, 96, 98, 100 so that
the latch may be rotatably or pivotably mounted on hood 34 coupled to the
water inlet valve assembly 12. Id. at 6:49–60, Fig. 1. When the toilet is
flushed, locking arm section 94 of latch 36 rotates or pivots downwardly,
releasing or unlocking float arm 24. Id. at 7:39–49.
Although Royalty may disclose a rotatable cam, the Examiner has
failed to establish sufficiently that Royalty discloses a “push/pull cam” as
required by the claims. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 7–
11, 13, 15–17, and 19–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Royalty.

Appeal 2019-001771
Application 15/252,396

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 7–11, 13,
15–17, and 19–25
102(b) Royalty 1–3, 5, 7–11,
13, 15–17,
and 19–25

REVERSED