Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Pascal Meier

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Pascal Meier

Patent Trials and Appeals Board Sep 3, 2019

15116261 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 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. 15/116,261 08/03/2016 Pascal MEIER 2016-0757A 1926 513 7590 09/03/2019 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER HICKS, ANGELISA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2019 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): eoa@wenderoth.com kmiller@wenderoth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte PASCAL MEIER __________ Appeal 2019-001023 Application 15/116,261 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 10–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Hydac Accessories GmbH (“Appellant”) is the Applicant, as provided for under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is also identified as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001023 Application 15/116,261 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The Specification “relates to a ball valve, comprising a valve housing that has at least two fluid connection points and a valve ball that is located in the valve housing.” Spec. 1. The valve ball is “rotatingly actuated into switched positions by means of a switching shaft, at least part of which engages in the valve housing, in which switched positions a fluid connection between fluid connection points can be opened or closed via a fluid passage in the ball valve.” Id. “[T]he object of the invention is that of providing a ball valve that enables an accurate checking of the ball position.” Id. at 2. To that end, the Specification discloses use “of a sensor array for the contactless reading of the positional information” of the valve ball. Id. The Rejected Claims Claims 10–16 are rejected. Final Act. 1.2 Claim 10, the sole independent claim, is representative and reproduced below. 10. A ball valve, comprising: a valve housing having first and second connection points; a ferromagnetic valve ball being located and rotatable in said valve housing between open and closed positions thereof and having a fluid passage therein connecting and disconnecting fluid communication between said connections in the open and closed positions, respectively; a switching shaft engaged in said valve housing and coupled to said valve ball rotatably actuating said valve ball between the open and closed positions thereof; 2 Claims 1–9 are cancelled, and no other claims are pending. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-001023 Application 15/116,261 3 positional information on said valve ball, said positional information including first and second recesses in an outer surface of said valve ball; and a sensor array coupled to said valve housing and identifying switched positions of said valve ball in said valve housing by reading said positional information, said sensor array including first and second sensors in said valve housing, said first and second sensors being first and second inductive proximity switches, respectively, that generate switch signals when each of said proximity switches is aligned with one of said recesses. Appeal Br. Claims App i. The Examiner’s Rejections The following rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, are before us for review: 1. claims 10–15 as being unpatentable over Zenz Translation3 and Bennet4 (Final Act. 3); and 2. claim 16 as being unpatentable over Zenz Translation, Bennett, and Spang5 (id. at 5). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 The Examiner found that Zenz Translation teaches all of the subject matter of claim 10 except for the valve ball being ferromagnetic, for which the Examiner relies on Bennett. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner concluded, based on certain stated reasons, that “[i]t would have been obvious at the 3 Translation of DE 20 2006 006 806 U1, published July 27, 2006 (“Zenz Translation”). 4 US 3,206,160, issued Sept. 14, 1965 (“Bennett”). 5 US 5,560,392, issued Oct. 1, 1996 (“Spang”). Appeal 2019-001023 Application 15/116,261 4 time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of the valve ball of Zenz [Translation] with a ferromagnetic material as taught by Bennett.” Id. at 4. Appellant presents two arguments against the rejection, one of which is dispositive of the entire appeal. See Appeal Br. 4 (“The rejection based on Zenz [Translation] and Bennett is traversed on two grounds involving errors by the Examiner.”). Appellant’s dispositive argument is that Zenz Translation does not teach “positional information on said valve ball, said positional information including first and second recesses in an outer surface of said valve ball,” as recited in claim 10 (emphasis added). See id. It is not disputed that Zenz Translation teaches positional information including a first recess in an outer surface of a valve ball, and does so in the form of “reactive component 21.” Zenz Translation 5 (“In the exemplary embodiment shown, [a] probe 20 is connected to the housing 1 while a reactive component 21 is embedded in the valve ball 2.”); see also Appeal Br. 4 (acknowledging “one recess is disclosed”). It is also not disputed that Zenz Translation teaches employing a second “reactive component.” Zenz Translation 6 (“[A] further reactive component of the illustrated component 21 may be embedded diagonally opposite the rotary body 2.”); see also Appeal Br. 4 (acknowledging the same). What is disputed is the location of the second reactive component. See Appeal Br. 4 (“This description [in Zenz Translation] does not specifically disclose or render obvious the two recesses in an outer surface of a valve ball as recited in claim 10.”); see also Reply 2 (arguing that Zenz Translation does not disclose two reactive components located on the valve ball, let alone in recesses on its outer surface). Appeal 2019-001023 Application 15/116,261 5 Appellant is correct that Zenz Translation does not disclose a second reactive component on the valve ball, let alone in a recess on its outer surface. With respect to its location, Zenz Translation states merely that it “may be embedded diagonally opposite the rotary body 2.” Zenz Translation 6. This suggests that the second reactive component is not on the rotary body/valve ball 2 because it is “opposite the rotary body 2.” Id. We are not certain how such a location would be desirable, but that is the only location taught by Zenz Translation for a second reactive component.6 For the foregoing reason, we reverse the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Zenz Translation and Bennet. We likewise reverse the same rejection of claims 11–15, which ultimately depend from claim 10. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”). Rejection 2 The rejection of claim 16, which ultimately depends from claim 10, is premised on Zenz Translation and Bennett satisfying all of the limitations of claim 10. See Final Act. 5–6. As discussed above, they do not. The instant rejection additionally relies on Spang but not to remedy the deficiency discussed above. Id. at 6. Accordingly, for similar reasons, we likewise reverse the rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Zenz Translation, Bennett, and Spang. 6 To the extent that Zenz Translation may not be an accurate translation of DE 20 2006 006 806 U1, we will not speculate as to what it should state. Appeal 2019-001023 Application 15/116,261 6 SUMMARY The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–15 as unpatentable over Zenz Translation and Bennet is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Zenz Translation, Bennett, and Spang is reversed. REVERSED