Ex Parte HagenDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 3, 201913102568 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/102,568 05/06/2011 20151 7590 05/07/2019 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC HENRY M FEIEREISEN 35 West 35th Street SUITE 900 NEW YORK, NY 10001 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Harald Hagen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. HAGEN-2 7388 EXAMINER HAMAOUI, DAVIDE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/07/2019 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): INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HARALD HAGEN Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Harald Hagen ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-7 in this application. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing was held on April 16, 2019, via videoconference, with Appellant's representative Alexandra K. Pechhold, Esq. See Transcript (dated Apr. 30, 2019) ("Tr."). We AFFIRM. 1 AUDI AG is identified as the real party in interest. Br. (dated Apr. 22, 2016) 2. Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and it recites: 1. A tank venting device for a fuel tank of a motor vehicle having an internal combustion engine with a motor control device, comprising: an activated carbon filter which is directly connected to a fuel tank via a first gas line in the absence of an intermediate element and directly connected to the atmosphere or ambient environment via a second gas line in the absence of an intermediate filter or other intermediate elements, and which is connected to an intake tract of the internal combustion engine via a third gas line; a valve unit including a single two-stage solenoid valve which has a first valve stage arranged in the first gas line, a second valve stage arranged in the second gas line and constructed so as to control a gas flow through the first and second gas lines, and a single solenoid actuating the first valve stage in the first gas line and the second valve stage in the second valve line in the absence of the filter or the intermediate element in the first and second gas lines; and a single switch located between a battery and the motor control device and rendered operational by the motor control device to control the operation of the single solenoid of the single two-stage solenoid valve having the first and the second stages and controlling the gas flow through the first and second gas lines by feeding current or cutting current to an excitation coil of the solenoid valve. Br. 7 (Claims App.). REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over: (a) Pittel (US 6,772,741 Bl, iss. Aug. 10, 2004); (b) Koumura (US 4,580,541, iss. Apr. 8, 1986); ( c) one or more of Kraft (US 6,006,799, iss. Dec. 28, 1999), Wada (US 8,015,957 B2, iss. Sept. 13, 2 Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 2011), and Bidner (US 2010/0024771 Al, pub. Feb. 4, 2010); (d) Humburg (US 5,189,991, iss. Mar. 2, 1993); (e) Rockwell (US 7,594,500 B2, iss. Sept. 29, 2009); and (f) Koyama (US 7,409,947 B2, iss. Aug. 12, 2008). OPINION The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 relies on Pittel's Figure 1 as illustrating a tank venting device incorporating several claim limitations, which Appellant concedes Pittel "definitely discloses." Final Act. (dated Nov. 30, 2015) 4; Br. 4. Thus, the Examiner and Appellant agree that Pittel' s venting device is used within a vehicle having an internal combustion engine (i.e., engine 36). Final Act. 4. Further, Pittel discloses an activated carbon filter (i.e., absorbent carbon pellets 39) connected to: a fuel tank (i.e., fuel tank 44) via a first gas line (i.e., conduits 42 and 46) in the absence of an intermediate element; the atmosphere via a second gas line (i.e., conduits 48 and 52); and an intake of engine 36 via a third gas line (i.e., conduit 40). Id. Also, Pittel discloses a valve unit including a first valve stage (i.e., valve 16) arranged in the first gas line, and a second valve stage (i.e., valve 18) arranged in the second gas line. Id. Moreover, valve stages 16 and 18 are respectively actuated by first and second solenoids (i.e., solenoids 76 and 78) controlled by a motor control device (i.e., engine controller 88) via respective switches. 2 Id. at 5. 2 In the Appeal Brief, Appellant concedes Pittel discloses "respective switches operated by a motor control device for controlling the operation of the solenoids valves." Br. 4 (i11, lines 9-11). During the hearing, Appellant attempted to back away from that concession, and argued Pittel does not disclose control switches for solenoids 76 and 78. Tr. 3:14--4:2. We decline to consider this argument, which was raised for the first time at the hearing, 3 Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 Appellant contends Pittel' s "gas lines have intermediate elements and an intermediate filter." Br. 4. Presumably, Appellant's view is that Pittel therefore differs from claim 1 in that the claim requires certain connections to be "in the absence of an intermediate element" such as "an intermediate filter." Id. at 7 (Claims App., reciting "in the absence of' three times). However, Appellant does not identify the particular structure or structures in the system of Pittel' s Figure 1 that might correspond to the intermediate element(s) precluded by claim 1. See id. at 4; Tr. 7:5-8:5. We agree with the Examiner that the only such intermediate element in the system of Pittel' s Figure 1 is filter 50, which the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to remove, as discussed below. See Ans. 6. Therefore, Appellant's argument in this regard is not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner next determines Pittel does not disclose four limitations recited in claim 1, and relies on the other cited prior art references for obviousness in these regards. See Final Act. 5---6. We address each in tum. First, the Examiner finds Pittel is silent as to using "a battery" as a power source for the vehicle's electronics, as claimed. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds "it is known to use batteries for such purposes," and therefore determines "it would have been obvious to do so in the [ system of Pittel' s Figure 1]." Id. Appellant does not challenge this finding and determination of obviousness. See Br. 4--5. because the Examiner has not had an opportunity to respond to it. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(e) ("At the oral hearing, appellant may only ... present argument that has been relied upon in the [appeal] brief or reply brief' unless "good cause" is shown). 4 Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 Second, the Examiner finds Pittel is silent as to whether the solenoid switches are located externally to motor control device 88 so as to be "between" device 88 and the battery, as claimed. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds "it is known to configure such switches externally from a control unit" ( citing Koumura, Fig. 1, switch 18 and control unit 9), and determines "it would have been obvious to do so in the [ system of Pittel' s Figure 1], for example, for manufacturing ease or cost." Final Act. 2, 5. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's finding related to the Koumura disclosure, or the related determination of obviousness based on that disclosure. See Br. 4--5. Third, the Examiner finds Pittel lacks second gas line 48, 52 being "absent of an intermediate filter or other intermediate elements," as claimed, because filter 50 is located in conduit 52. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds "it is well known that a carbon canister may be vented to the atmosphere without an additional filter" ( citing Koyama, Fig. 1, atmosphere passage 21 and atmospheric release valve 22), and determines "it would have been obvious to omit this element in the [ system of Pittel' s Figure 1], for example, for manufacturing ease or cost." Final Act. 2, 3, 6. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's finding related to the Koyama disclosure, or the related determination of obviousness based on that disclosure. See Br. 4--5. Fourth and finally, the Examiner finds Pittel lacks combining the two valves 16 and 18 into "a single two-stage solenoid valve" actuated by "a single solenoid," as claimed (emphases added). Final Act. 5. The Examiner determines Pittel itself suggests "it is in fact appropriate to link the functionality" of the two valves 16 and 18 in the system of Figure 1, because 5 Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 Pittel discloses an alternative embodiment in Figure 2, in which two similarly situated valves 16 and 18 are "linked, albeit pneumatically, not mechanically." Final Act. 2, 6. Based on that disclosure, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the system of Pittel' s Figure 1 to provide a single two stage solenoid valve assembly to open and close valves 16 and 18, because this is "a well known technique to combine two valves into a single two stage valve." Id. at 6 (citing Kraft, "fig 2: 111"; Wada, "fig 1: 28, 29"; Bidner, "fig lOB, [0103---0104]"; and Humburg, "fig 1: 9, 10, 11, 15"). 3 Appellant challenges the Examiner's foregoing determination of obviousness, arguing "it is neither known from [Kraft, Wada, Bidner, and Humburg] nor apparent to provide a tank venting device with ... a single solenoid of a single two-stage solenoid valve .... " Br. 4. Further, according to Appellant, the cited combination of prior art references "would not lead to" that feature of claim 1. Id. at 6. We do not agree with the foregoing conclusory arguments of Examiner error. Instead, we determine the cited disclosures of Pittel, Kraft, Wada, Bidner, and Humburg sufficiently support the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to modify the system of Pittel' s Figure 1 so that valves 16 and 18 would both be opened or both be closed via the operation of a single solenoid and a single armature, rather than two separate solenoids with separate armatures, as follows. 3 The Examiner cites Rockwell as additional support, finding Rockwell discloses a "similar system wherein analogous valves are located adjacent one another." Final Act. 6 (citing Rockwell, Fig. 1). We do not rely on this additional finding in the present decision. See, e.g., Ans. 7 (stating "Rockwell's presence is unnecessary to the rejection of claim 1 "). 6 Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 Pittel' s Figure 2 expressly contemplates that valves 16 and 18 may be simultaneously opened or closed via a single actuation system, which in Figure 2 is pressure relief valve 94a, rather than the dual solenoid actuation of Figure 1. See Pittel, Fig. 2, 6:12-24 (the fuel system of Figure 2 "is substantially similar to" the fuel system of Figure 1, "with the exception that the first and second valves 16, 18 are controlled by the engine vacuum directly") (emphasis added); id. at Figs. 2-3, 7:19-50 (pressure relief valve 94a modifies the pressure applied to plungers 56 of valves 16 and 18, such that both valves are either opened or closed at the same time). Further, the additionally cited references of Kraft, Wada, Bidner, and Humburg demonstrate that it was known to control the opened I closed status of two valves, simultaneously, with a single solenoid armature. Kraft's Figure 2 illustrates valve 111, having a first section 112 in fuel vapor line 125 and a second section 115 in fuel vapor line 16. See Kraft, Fig. 2, 4:15-17, 4:37-39, 4:54--59. Valve 111 has two positions, a first "operating" position (shown in Figure 2) in which line 16 is opened and line 125 is closed, and a second "filling" position (valve 111 shifts "upwardly" in Figure 2) in which line 16 is closed and line 125 is opened. See id. at Fig. 2, 4:23---64. Valve 111 is moved from the first position to the second position when fuel pump nozzle 6 pivots flap 8 "so that the valve 111 is shifted by way of the rotary valve actuator 10," although no further detail is provided to indicate how actuator 10 causes the movement of valve 111. Id. at 4:46- 48. Bidner' s Figure 1 OB illustrates a similar position-shifting valve 1010, having two fuel inlet passages 1020, 2030 and two fuel outlet passages 1050, 1060. See Bidner, Fig. lOB, ,r 103. Bidner's valve 1010 has seven 7 Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 positions 1072, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1080, 1082, 1084, the selection of which determines which inlet is opened or closed, and if opened, to which outlet the inlet leads. Id. at Fig. 1 OB, ,r,r 103-104. A given position is selected by longitudinal movement 1090 of valve 1010, "via an actuator such as a solenoid." Id. ,r 104. Wada's Figure 1 illustrates two similar position-shifting valves 28 and 29, with each valve disposed between two oil lines on one side of the valve and two oil lines on the opposite side of the valve. Wada, Fig. 1, 6:1-22. Wada's valves 28 and 29 each have three positions, selection of which determines whether and how oil is transferred through the valves. Id. at Fig. 1, 6:22--41. A given position is selected by "a moveable spool" within valve 28 or 29, with solenoid 28a or 29a "displacing the spool to switch the [three] modes illustrated." Id. at 6:22-31. Humburg' s Figure 1 discloses valve 1 comprising a single solenoid 3, with piston 9 and coil 15, wherein solenoid 3 reciprocates two valve nipples 10 and 11 to open or to close two inlets 4 and 5 leading to a single, common outlet 6. Id. at Fig. 1, 1:6-10, 4:31--42, 4:58---61. Humburg's valve 1 controls the flow of a vehicle coolant through the valve. Id. at 3:51- 53, 4:2--4, 7:23-24. These various disclosures of Kraft, Wada, Bidner, and Humburg, which are all cited by the Examiner, collectively provide a preponderance of evidence to support the Examiner's finding that it was known to control the opened I closed status of two valve stages, simultaneously, with a single solenoid armature. These disclosures, in combination with the suggestion provided in Pittel' s Figure 2 to provide a single actuation system for the two 8 Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 valves 16 and 18 shown in Pittel' s Figure 1, provide a preponderance of evidence to support the Examiner's determination of obviousness. Appellant, finally, asserts that the Examiner's combination of prior art references "cannot be obvious even in view of the fact that the very number of the references suggested to be combined with one another is so high that it just proves the opposite: the suggested combination is not obvious." Br. 5. Appellant further faults the Examiner for failing to "explain why it can be considered as obvious to one skilled in the art to combine so many references." Id. These arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. Ans. 6 (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Further, as set forth above, the Examiner did provide findings and reasons in support of each determination of obviousness. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as having been obvious over Pittel; Koumura; one or more of Kraft, Wada and Bidner; Humburg; Rockwell; and Koyama. Appellant does not argue for the patentability of dependent claims 3-7 separately from claim 1, so we likewise sustain the rejection of those claims. See Br. 4--5; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-7 is affirmed. 9 Appeal2017-005689 Application 13/102,568 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 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation