Ex Parte Benjey

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2006

10060121 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2006)

1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

__________

Ex parte ROBERT P. BENJEY

__________

Appeal No. 2006-1744
Application No. 10/060,121

__________

ON BRIEF
__________

Before OWENS, LEVY, and FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 1-12, which are all of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a system and method for controlling the flow of liquid fuel
and fuel vapor during refueling of a motor vehicle fuel tank. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for controlling flow of liquid fuel and vapor during refueling of a motor
vehicle fuel tank with a filler tube for receiving a fuel dispensing nozzle comprising:

(a) a vent valve disposed in the tank and having an inlet communicating with the
vapor dome in the tank and an outlet communicating with a remote vapor storage
device;

Appeal No. 2006-1744
Application No. 10/060,121

2
(b) a seal disposed in the filler tube and operable for sealing about the nozzle
upon insertion therein;

(c) a recirculation conduit having one end connected to admit fuel vapor to the
filler tube at a location downstream of the seal and having an end opposite said one end
connected to receive fuel vapor from the outlet of said vent valve; and,

(d) a neck portion in the filler tube downstream of the location of said recirculation
conduit connection location, wherein said neck has the inner periphery thereof sized to
receive the nozzle in closely fitting arrangement and to form an effective dynamic seal
about liquid discharging from the nozzle.

THE REFERENCES
Aubel et al. (Aubel) 5,183,087 Feb. 2, 1993
Yamazaki et al. (Yamazaki) 5,606,954 Mar. 4, 1997
Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto) 5,769,057 Jun. 23, 1998

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yamazaki in view of Aubel and Hashimoto.
OPINION

We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
The appellant does not argue any particular claim, or argue that if the references
were combined, the claimed invention would not be obtained. The appellant’s sole
argument is that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings
in the applied references. Hence, we limit our discussion to that argument. See 37
CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appeal No. 2006-1744
Application No. 10/060,121

3
Yamazaki discloses “an evaporative fuel processing device for suppressing the
release of evaporative fuel from a fuel tank during refueling with a refueling nozzle” (col.
1, lines 7-10). The device includes a float valve (26) in communication with the vapor
dome of the tank, and an evaporative fuel passage (23a, 55) between the float valve
and a refueling line (22) (col. 3, lines 44-58; col. 4, lines 8-20; figure 1).
Aubel discloses a motor vehicle fuel vapor recovery system having a fuel nozzle
seal (24) (col. 3, lines 59-63; figure 3).
Hashimoto discloses a filler tube (3) having a neck portion in a closely fitting
arrangement with a nozzle (N) (col. 5, line 12; figure 4).
The appellant argues that at column 9, lines 7-9 Yamazaki explicitly recognizes
that generating fuel vapor requires drawing fresh air into a filler tube during refueling,
and that adding Aubel’s seal to Yamazaki’s nozzle would prevent fresh air from being
drawn in, causing the rushing fuel to pull the limited amount of air below the seal toward
the tank and create a vacuum at the nozzle tip, thereby shutting off the nozzle
prematurely (brief, page 4; reply brief, page 2). The portion of Yamazaki relied upon by
the appellant states that “[e]vaporative fuel newly generated in the tank body 21 is
increased in accordance with an increase of fresh air attendant with a decrease of
evaporative fuel circulated.” That portion does not state that air is desirable or is to be
increased. Yamazaki discloses connecting evaporative fuel passage 273 at a location
nearer the tank body than a shutter (57) that appears to be comparable to the
appellant’s seal (col. 9, lines 48-54; figure 9). Moreover, the appellant acknowledges
that it was known in the art to attach a vapor recirculation line to a nozzle downstream
Appeal No. 2006-1744
Application No. 10/060,121

4
of a nozzle seal (prior art figure 3). Thus, Yamazaki’s disclosure of a shutter at least
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a nozzle seal.
The appellant argues that at column 7, lines 26-46, Hashimoto requires a specific
amount of air to be drawn into the filler tube during refueling to create negative pressure
without causing premature nozzle shutoff (brief, page 5; reply brief, page 2). The
portion of Hashimoto relied upon by the appellant discloses controlling the inhalation of
outside air (col. 7, lines 31-32). Hashimoto teaches that it is desirable that the air drawn
in “may become a little greater than zero” (col. 9, lines 48-49). Hashimoto does not
indicate that an amount of air that is a little greater than zero would exceed the amount
drawn in through a nozzle seal. We note that the appellant acknowledges that air can
leak past his seal (specification, page 9, ¶ 0032).
For the above reasons, we are not convinced of reversible error in the examiner’s
rejection.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yamazaki in view of
Aubel and Hashimoto is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2006-1744
Application No. 10/060,121

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

Terry J. Owens )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Stuart S. Levy ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Anton W. Fetting )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TJO:tdl
Appeal No. 2006-1744
Application No. 10/060,121

6
Eaton Corporation
Eaton Center
1111 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114