Ex Parte Gonzalez Delgado et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2016

12621070 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

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.
12/621,070 11/18/2009 MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ DELGADO P008630-PTE-DPH 1762
74175 7590 12/20/2016
Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
HAMAOUI, DAVID E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2016 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):
gm-inbox@hdp.com
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ DELGADO,
ROBERT J. MORAN, SAMEER BHARGAVA,
RONALD JAY PIERIK, and JONATHAN L. BURTON
Appeal 2014-009115
Application 12/621,070
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, GORDON D. KINDER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GM Global Technology
Operations, Inc.
Appeal 2014-009115
Application 12/621,070
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an engine including a valve lift assembly
for internal EGR control. Claim 1, the only independent claim, is
reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter with the
disputed claim limitation italicized:
1. An engine assembly comprising:
an engine structure defining a combustion chamber;
a first exhaust valve lift assembly supported by the engine
structure and including a first roller assembly fixed for pivotal
displacement with a lever body and a second roller assembly
supported by an arm pivotally coupled to the lever body and a
latch operable in a first operating mode wherein the latch is
disengaged and a second operating mode wherein the latch
engages the arm for pivotal displacement with the lever body;
a first exhaust valve engaged with the first exhaust valve
lift assembly and in communication with the combustion
chamber; and
a first camshaft including a first exhaust lobe engaged with
the first exhaust valve lift assembly and defining a profile
including a first exhaust region and a first exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) region, the first exhaust valve remaining
closed when the first EGR region engages the first exhaust valve
lift assembly during the first operating mode and the first exhaust
valve being opened when the first EGR region engages the first
exhaust valve lift assembly during the second operating mode to
provide exhaust gas flow into the combustion chamber during an
intake stroke of the engine assembly, wherein the first exhaust
lobe includes first and second lobe members axially spaced from
one another, the first lobe member having a first lobe profile
defining a first base region and the first exhaust region extending
radially outward from the first base region and the second lobe
member having a second lobe profde defining a second base
region and the first EGR region extending radially outward from
the second base region and a second exhaust region extending
radially outward from the second base region and
circumferentially spaced along the second lobe profile from the
2
Appeal 2014-009115
Application 12/621,070
first EGR region, wherein the first exhaust valve lift assembly
includes a multi-step rocker arm having a main body and a first
arm, the first lobe member engaged with the main body and the
second lobe member engaged with the first arm, the first arm
displaceable relative to the main body during the first operating
mode and fixed for displacement with the main body during the
second operating mode.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hakansson
Hendriksma
Daigo
Moriya
Sellnau
US 5,603,292
US 6,668,779 B2
US 6,918,363 B2
US 7,082,913 B2
US 2008/0047509
Feb. 18, 1997
Dec. 30, 2003
July 19, 2005
Aug. 1, 2006
A1 Feb. 28, 2008
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sellnau, Hendriksma, Daigo, and Hakansson.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sellnau Hendriksma, Daigo, Hakansson, and Moriya.2
2 Although the Examiner stated the rejection of claim 6 as being over
Sellnau in view of Moriya, claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 1, and
thus, we understand the rejection to be based on Sellnau, as modified by
Hendriksma, Daigo, and Hakansson in the rejection of independent claim 1,
and as further modified by the teaching of Moriya.
3
Appeal 2014-009115
Application 12/621,070
OPINION
Appellants argue claims 1—5, 7, and 8 as a group, and we select claim
1 as representative. Claims 2—5, 7, and 8 stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in
rejecting these claim. Appeal Br. 6—14. The Examiner finds, in support of
the rejection, that
Sellnau lacks the second exhaust region circumferentially
spaced along the second lobe profile from the first EGR region.
However, it is known to close the exhaust valve at its
normal time and re-open it during the intake stroke for an EGR
region. For example, see Daigo . . . figure 12 and [Hakansson]
. . . figure 5. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the
structural principles of Sellnau to affect a lift profile as is well
known and evidenced above.
Final Act. 5.
Appellants first argue that in Sellnau “there is no circumferential
spacing between the two regions as identified by the office action.” Appeal
Br. 11. In addition Appellants argue “[njeither Sellnau nor any of the
secondary references disclose[s] a lobe profile having an EGR region spaced
at a distance from an exhaust region, as claimed.” Id. Appellants continue
“Sellnau does not disclose one of the lobe members ... as having both an
exhaust lift region and an EGR lift region that each extend from the base
region and are circumferentially spaced along the lobe profile from each
other, as claimed.” Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants describe the
latch mechanism of Hendriksma and conclude it does not remedy the
deficiencies of Sellnau. Id. at 13. Next, appellants address the Daigo and
Hakansson references. In each case, Appellants argue that the reference
does not teach a single cam with a two-lobe profile. Specifically, Appellants
conclude “Daigo does not disclose a cam profile with both an exhaust region
4
Appeal 2014-009115
Application 12/621,070
and an EGR region extending from the base region and circumferentially
spaced from each other, as claimed.” Id. Finally, Appellants conclude
“[Hakansson] also does not disclose or suggest a cam profile with both an
exhaust region and an EGR region extending from the base region and
circumferentially spaced from each other, as claimed.” Id. at 14.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the Examiner concluded it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of Daigo and Hakansson with those
of Sellnau to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Appellants never
addressed the basis for the Examiner’s conclusion, choosing instead to attack
the references individually. Appellants’ Reply presents the same arguments
as the Appeal Brief, describing what each reference is missing without
speaking to the combination proposed by the Examiner. Reply 4—8. In the
absence of an argument directed to the Examiner’s findings, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Claim 6 was rejected over Sellnau, as modified by the teachings of
Hendriksma, Daigo, and Hakansson, and further in view of Moriya.
Appellants argue that Moriya does not cure the deficiencies of Sellnau.
Appeal Br. 14; Reply 9. In as much as we do not find Sellnau deficient, we
are not persuaded that claims 6 is improperly rejected.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8 are
affirmed.
5
Appeal 2014-009115
Application 12/621,070
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6