Ex Parte Balsdon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2011

10103489 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2011)

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.
10/103,489 03/22/2002 David William Balsdon 2002P05054US 7683
75227 7590 03/22/2011
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
FOX, JOHN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DAVID WILLIAM BALSDON
____________________

Appeal 2009-009319
Application 10/103,489
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, LINDA E. HORNER, and STEFAN
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009319
Application 10/103,489
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
17-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a canister purge valve for high regeneration
airflow. Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
17. A method of assembling a linear solenoid purge vale
component, the method comprising:
winding a wire around a bobbin;
electrically connecting the wire to a terminal, wherein the
bobbin supports the the terminal;
overmolding a cap to form an overmolded subassembly,
the cap defining a first cavity and a second cavity, the first
cavity contiguously engages and generally encapsulates the
wire and bobbin, and the cap partially encapsulates the
terminal; and
threadedly engaging a calibration member with the cap,
the calibration member being entirely disposed in the second
cavity so that a resilient element engages a surface of the
calibration member, the resilient member being trapped
between the overmolded subassembly and the calibration
member.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rosas
Erickson
Cook
US 5,649,687
US 6,029,703
US 6,681,746 B1
Jul. 22, 1997
Feb. 29, 2000
Jan. 27, 2004

Appeal 2009-009319
Application 10/103,489
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 17-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cook and Erickson. Ans. 3.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cook, Erickson, and Rosas. Ans. 4.

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner. As a result of this review, we
have determined that the applied prior art establishes the prima facie
obviousness of claims 17-21. Therefore the rejections of these claims are
affirmed. Our reasons follow.
Turning first to the issue of claim construction, we construe the claim
term “cavity.” Appellant has not defined the term in his Specification, and a
dictionary definition for the term “cavity” is simply “a hollow place or a
hollow.” RANDOMHOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 331 (2nd
unabridged ed. 1989). Applying the claim term to the reference, and giving
the claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is our view that the
Examiner construed the claim in a reasonable manner in finding that Cook
discloses two cavities, one of larger diameter and one of smaller diameter.
Nothing in independent claim 17 forbids the cavities from connecting or
communicating. We do note that the Examiner has repeatedly referred to the
cavities as “chambers” in his factual findings on page 3 of the Answer.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to the Cook reference.
Ans. 3. We are further in agreement with the Examiner that the method steps
of claim 17 are impliedly taught by the construction of the embodiment of
Figure 6 of Cook. See Ans. 4-5. We further agree with the Examiner that
Appeal 2009-009319
Application 10/103,489
4
Cook discloses that the adjustment screw 88 acts directly on spring seat 87
instead of on the spring 86, and so Cook differs from the claimed subject
matter with regard to the presence of the spring seat 87. See Ans. 5.
Erickson discloses a solenoid valve with an adjustment member 50
acting directly on spring 52. Erickson, col. 3, ll. 33-41. We agree with the
Examiner that the substitution of an adjustment member that acts directly on
the spring is a simple substitution of one known element for another to
obtain predictable results. Accordingly, in our view, the method of
assembly of claim 17 is prima facie obvious from the combined disclosures
of Cook and Erickson.
Appellant argues that Cook discloses only a single cavity. As noted
above in our claim construction, we agree with the Examiner that it is
reasonable to interpret Cook as having a smaller diameter cavity and a larger
diameter cavity. Nothing in Appellant’s claim precludes the cavities from
connecting. Appellant argues that all of Cook’s subassembly must be
inserted through the lower portion of the overmoulded cap. App. Br. 5.
While this may be true, we agree with the Examiner that the claim does not
preclude this method of assembly. Finally, Appellant argues that the
resilient member of Cook is not trapped between the calibration member and
the overmoulded subassembly. App. Br. 6. As we understand Appellant’s
arguments, it is that the resilient member is not trapped by the calibration
member and the overmoulded subassembly. However, the claim has the
broader wording that the subassembly is trapped between those elements.
Giving the preposition “between” its broadest reasonable interpretation, we
view the resilient member of Cook as trapped on one side by the resilient
member and trapped on the other side by the spring seat 79 which is
disposed short of the top of the overmoulded subassembly. Therefore the
Appeal 2009-009319
Application 10/103,489
5
placement of the resilient member in Cook satisfies the claim limitation of
being trapped between these members, while it may not actually be trapped
by these elements.
Appellant makes the same arguments for claim 21 adding the
additional argument that the resilient member is not trapped between the
calibration member and the stator. Our response to this argument is the
same. The resilient member of Cook is trapped by the calibration member
and the spring seat 79. The spring seat 79 is well above the stator. Cook,
fig. 6, col. 6, ll. 55-57. Giving claim 21 its broadest reasonable
interpretation, the resilient member is trapped between the calibration
member of Cook as modified by Erickson, and the top of the stator.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nlk

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009