Ex Parte Cerny et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201713238244 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/238,244 09/21/2011 Mark S. Cerny 708544US1 6868 24938 7590 03/02/; FCA US LLC CIMS 483-02-19 800 CHRYSLER DR EAST AUBURN llll.I S. MI48326-2757 EXAMINER BACON, ANTHONY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2017 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): chris.davenport@fcagroup.com michelle.madak@fcagroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK S. CERNY and CHRISTOPHER R. GLASPIE Appeal 2015-004176 Application 13/238,244 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, LISA M. GUIJT, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants, Mark S. Cemy et al.,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—9, 11—17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cemy (US 5,289,627, iss. Mar. 1, 1994) and Stampe (US 4,066,213, iss. Jan. 3, 1978).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Chrysler Group LLC as the real party in interest. Br. 2. 2 Claims 5, 10, and 18 are cancelled. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-004176 Application 13/238,244 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a high pressure solenoid, and more particularly to a high pressure solenoid having a threaded gland nut that allows simple assembly and re-alignment of electrical connectors as well as decrease required service time when the solenoid requires maintenance.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A solenoid comprising: a housing having an outer surface and an inner surface, the inner surface defining a bore through the housing and the outer surface including a flange extending therefrom; an actuator subassembly positioned within the bore; a gland nut having a threaded outer surface and an inner surface, the inner surface of the gland nut being dimensioned to surround the outer surface of the housing and abut the flange; and a ring retainer secured to and extending from the housing at a location wherein the gland nut is positioned between the ring retainer and the flange, the ring retainer configured to overlap an upper portion of the housing so as to hold the actuator subassembly within the bore. ANALYSIS The Rejection of Claims 1—4, 6—9, 11—17, and 19 As Unpatentable Over Cerny and Stampe Claims E 9, and 17 Appellants argue claims 1, 9 and 17 as a group. Br. 7—9. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 9 and 17 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 2 Appeal 2015-004176 Application 13/238,244 The Examiner finds that Cemy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for “a gland nut having a threaded outer surface and an inner surface, the inner surface of the gland nut being dimensioned to surround the outer surface of the housing . . . and abut the flange,” and “a ring retainer secured to and extending from the housing at a location wherein the gland nut is positioned between the ring retainer and the flange, the ring retainer configured to overlap an upper portion of the housing so as to hold the actuator subassembly within the bore.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner also finds that Stampe discloses these missing limitations. Id. at 3. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings are incorrect because “Stampe does not disclose or suggest a ring retainer that both retains a gland nut and [(a)] overlaps an upper portion of the housing so as [(b)] to hold the actuator subassembly within the bore.” Br. 8. Appellants’ first argument that Stampe’s “retaining ring 48 does not overlap an upper portion of the nozzle holder 18[, but rather] is disposed within a groove 46 mid-way along the nozzle holder 18” is not persuasive. Id. As the Examiner correctly finds, Stampe’s retaining ring 48 is “inserted within a groove [46] in the housing [#18] so as to retain the gland nut [41] around the nozzle holder.” Ans. 6 (citing Stampe 2:20—24). The Examiner also correctly finds that Stampe’s retaining ring 48 is “located within the upper half of the housing [#18]” {Id.), and, thus, overlaps the upper portion of the housing, as broadly recited by claim 1. Appellants’ second argument that Stampe’s retaining ring does not hold the actuator subassembly within the bore because (a) “retaining ring 48 does not come into contact with the actuator subassembly within the nozzle holder 18,” and (b) the “only purpose of the retaining ring 48 of Stampe is to 3 Appeal 2015-004176 Application 13/238,244 retain the hollow screw 41 around the nozzle holder 18” is not persuasive. Br. 8; see also Stampe 2:14 (calling element 41 a “gland nut or hollow screw”). As correctly noted by the Examiner, “[t]here is no language in the claims that requires the ring retainer to come into contact with the actuator assembly.” Ans. 7. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. We also agree with the Examiner that, when Stampe’s retaining ring 48 “hold[s] the gland nut [41] in place, and thus secur[es] the fuel injector within the cylinder head, the internal portions of the fuel injector are also additionally secured.” Id. at 6. Thus, Stampe’s retaining ring 48 holds the actuator subassembly within the bore, as broadly recited by claim 1. For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Because Appellants do not identify any other patentable distinctions in claims 9 and 17, claims 9 and 17 fall with claim 1. Claims 2^4, 6—8, 11—16, and 19 Claims 2—4, 6—8, 11—16, and 19 depend from independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Appellants argue that “[t]hese dependent claims also recite additional limitations, which, in combination with the limitations of their respective independent claims, are not disclosed by Cemy and/or Stampe.” Br. 9. Appellants’ argument that these dependent claims recite additional elements that support patentability is not persuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (37 C.F.R. § 41.37 requires “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Appellants do not identify any patentable 4 Appeal 2015-004176 Application 13/238,244 distinctions for claims 2—4, 6—8, 11—16, and 19, and fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. For the reasons above, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—4, 6—8, 11—16, and 19 is sustained. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—9, 11-17, and 19 is 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation