Ex Parte GerstnerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201613170403 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016) 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. 13/170,403 06/28/2011 Michael D. Gerstner 50100/10-0758 3739 89881 7590 12/13/2016 Caterpillar/ Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP One North Franklin Street Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER STAUBACH, CARL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2016 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): tmiller@ millermatthiashull. com mloye @ millermatthiashull. com us_docket_clerk@cat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL D. GERSTNER Appeal 2015-0025821 Application 13/170,4032 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. FETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Sept. 3, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 22, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 24, 2014), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 11, 2014). 2 Appellant identifies Caterpillar Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-002582 Application 13/170,403 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “generally relates to high pressure fuel pump structures, and particularly to common rail fuel pump control systems.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A fuel pump manifold pressure control system comprising: a housing enclosing a fuel pump manifold, wherein said fuel pump manifold is adapted to supply fuel to a fuel rail, said fuel rail being adapted for supplying pressurized fuel to at least one fuel injector; said fuel pump manifold pressure control system further comprising: a) a pressure control valve; b) a pressure sensor, and c) a pressure relief valve; wherein each of said pressure control valve and pressure sensor is adapted for signal communication with an electronic controller, and for fuel communication with said fuel pump manifold, and wherein said pressure relief valve is adapted for fuel communication with said fuel pump manifold; wherein each of said control valve, sensor, and relief valve is fixedly mounted to, and internally contained within, said housing. REJECTIONS Claims 1—7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cavanagh (US 5,983,863, iss. Nov. 16, 1999). Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cavanagh and Feinleib (US 7,455,049 B2, iss. Nov. 25, 2008). 2 Appeal 2015-002582 Application 13/170,403 ANALYSIS Anticipation Independent Claims 1 and 10, and Dependent Claims 2—7 and 11—13 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 10 because Cavanagh does not disclose “each of said control valve, sensor, and relief valve is fixedly mounted to, and internally contained within, said housing,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 10. App. Br. 6—10; see also Reply Br. 1—6. The Examiner identifies Cavanagh’s pump control valve 18, pressure sensor 42, and pressure regulator 1630, as the claimed control valve, sensor, and relief valve. See Final Act. 2—3; see also Ans. 8—10. Cavanagh is directed to a unitized fuel delivery system having a high pressure accumulator 12 housed by accumulator housing 34, a high pressure pump 14 housed by pump housing 22, and a fuel distributor 16 housed by distributor housing 44. Cavanagh, col. 16,11. 28-41,11. 58—63, Fig. 2. Subsequent connection of the respective housings 22, 34, and 44 forms a compact, unitized assembly having axial, radial, and lateral extents within which other components, such as pressure sensor 42 and pump control valves 18 and 19, can be integrated into the assembly while maintaining the functionality of each component. Id. at col. 17,11. 50-59. Cavanagh describes that pump control valve 18 and pressure sensor 42 are mounted on accumulator housing 34. Id. at col. 17,11. 32-40, Figs. 2—3. In contrast, pressure regulator 1630 of cavitation control device is formed in the distributor housing. See id. at col. 55,11. 43 46, col. 60,11. 30-34, Figs. 63a, 63b, 66; see also Ans. 10 (relief valve 1630 “must be contained within the distributor housing”). 3 Appeal 2015-002582 Application 13/170,403 In rejecting claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner finds that Cavanagh’s accumulator 12 is enclosed by accumulator housing 34 and constitutes the claimed fuel pump manifold. Final Act. 2 (citing Cavanagh, col. 16,11. 58—63, Fig. 5). Nonetheless, the Examiner takes the position that an assembly of housings 22, 34, and 44 constitutes the claimed housing that encloses the fuel pump manifold. Id. And the Examiner determines that each of the pump control valve 18, pressure sensor 42, and pressure regulator 1630 is fixedly mounted to, and internally contained within, the assembly of housing structures 22, 34, and 44. Id. at 2—3; see also Ans. 10 (“accumulator housing (34), distributor housing (44), and pump housing (22), all contain items a, b, c, of claims 1 and 10”). In our view, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand in light of the Specification that the claimed housing identifies a housing that encloses a fuel pump manifold — not a housing that encloses a fuel pump manifold plus additional housings that do not. See, e.g., Spec, 6 (the claimed invention packages “pressure relief valves, pressure sensors, and pressure control valves into actual fuel pump housings, as opposed to the placement of one or more of such components outside of such housings”), 7 (“a housing that contains an entire plurality of pump components”), 10 (“a single unitary housing”); 15 (“a structural housing 12 . . . contains a plurality of serially aligned pumping elements”), 21 (“pressure control valve 50, a pressure sensor 52, and a pressure relief valve 54 may be aligned vertically in a parallel array within the housing 12 as shown [in Figure 4]”), Figs. 1, 4. Because accumulator housing 34 encloses accumulator 12, and pump housing 22 and distributor housing 44 are housings outside of accumulator 4 Appeal 2015-002582 Application 13/170,403 housing 34 that enclose other components, an assembly of the housings does not disclose the claimed housing. Because Cavanagh’s pressure regulator 1630 of cavitation control device is formed in the distributor housing and not in the accumulator housing, we agree with Appellant that Cavanagh fails to disclose “each of said control valve, sensor, and relief valve is fixedly mounted to, and internally contained within, said housing,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 10. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of dependent claims 2—7 and 11—13. Obviousness Dependent Claims 8, 9, 14, 15 Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 each ultimately depends from one of claims 1 and 10. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 as unpatentable based on Feinleib, in combination with Cavanagh, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 10. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims 1 and 10. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 and 10—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation