PTAB

IPR2024-00851

RJ Machine v. Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GmbH + Co KG

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Connecting Apparatus for Creating a Connection Between a Measuring Instrument/Valve Block and a Pipeline
  • Brief Description: The ’030 patent discloses a connecting apparatus for fluidly connecting a pipeline to a measuring instrument. The apparatus uses a union nut to join two separate connecting devices, which allows the connection to be sealed by rotating only the nut, rather than the entire apparatus, simplifying installation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Craig - Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Craig.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Craig (Application # 2013/0187075).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Craig, which discloses a union valve for connecting a propane gas line, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Craig's union valve 8 was asserted to be a connecting apparatus comprising a first connecting device (union end 13), a second connecting device (end connection 11), and a connecting unit (nut 12). Petitioner mapped these components to the limitations of claim 1, arguing that Craig's nut 12 interconnects the two devices via an inner flange and threads, allowing for a sealed connection to be made by rotating only the nut. Petitioner further contended that Craig’s integrated ball valve constitutes the claimed shutoff valve, and its stem extends at a right angle (90°) to the apparatus's longitudinal axis, anticipating claim 7.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Parker and Schneider Adaptor - Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are obvious over Parker-1/Parker-2 combined with the 2012 Accessories Catalog and common knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Parker-1/Parker-2 (Parker Direct-Mount® Duoâ„¢ I.O.M. Manuals) and the 2012 Accessories Catalog (an AS-Schneider catalog disclosing a "Schneider Adaptor").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the Parker references disclose a similar connecting apparatus with a "stabilized connector" (first connecting device) and an "integral block valve" (second connecting device) joined by a union nut. However, Petitioner argued Parker’s union nut is "reversed," having male threads to engage female threads on the block valve. The 2012 Accessories Catalog, published by the Patent Owner, allegedly discloses a conventional union connection (the "Schneider Adaptor") with a female-threaded nut and an inner flange that engages an outer flange on a first connecting device, exactly as claimed in the ’030 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify the Parker apparatus by substituting its male-threaded union nut with the conventional female-threaded union nut shown in the Schneider Adaptor. Petitioner contended this would be a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection type for another to achieve the predictable result of a non-rotating union connection.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both union nut configurations were well-known equivalents for connecting components without rotation, and the modification was a simple design choice between two basic configurations.

Ground 3: Obviousness over DPD and Schneider Adaptor - Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are obvious over the 2008 Hook-ups Catalog combined with the 2012 Accessories Catalog and common knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The 2008 Hook-ups Catalog (an AS-Schneider catalog disclosing a "DPD" product) and the 2012 Accessories Catalog (disclosing the "Schneider Adaptor").

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the DPD product, disclosed in the Patent Owner's 2008 catalog, is a connecting apparatus for directly mounting a pressure instrument to a process line. DPD connects a first device (hex nipple) to a second device (valve manifold) but uses a bolted flange connection rather than a union nut. Petitioner asserted that the only missing feature is the claimed union nut connection. This feature is allegedly taught by the Schneider Adaptor from the 2012 Accessories Catalog.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have found it obvious to substitute the bolted flange connection of DPD with the conventional union connection from the Schneider Adaptor. The motivation would be to gain the known benefits of a union connection, such as easier installation, more tolerance for misalignment, and a more compact design, which are predictable improvements over a bolted flange.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success because substituting a bolted flange with a well-known union nut is a routine and predictable modification in the field of pipe fitting to achieve a more convenient connection.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional anticipation challenge (Ground 2) based on the PR08 product in the 2008 Hook-ups Catalog. Petitioner also asserted an obviousness challenge (Ground 3) arguing it would have been obvious to simply reverse the orientation of the Craig device to meet any perceived differences from the claimed invention.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’030 patent as unpatentable.