Ex Parte Hanjagi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2016

13223963 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/223,963 09/01/2011
64588 7590 09/12/2016
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.
Patents & Licenses
21440 W Lake Cook Road
Floor 7
Deer Park, IL 60010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mahesh N. Hanjagi
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.
2011P00688US 8454
EXAMINER
MURPHY, KEVIN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2016 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):
patentsus@continental-corporation.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARESH N. HANJAGI and STEPHEN C. BUGOS
Appeal2014-006383 1
Application 13/223,9632
Technology Center 3700
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8, 10-18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 6, 2014), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 7,
2014), and Specification ("Spec.," filed Sept. 1, 2011), and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 29, 2014) and Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Dec. 11, 2013).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Continental
Automotive Systems US, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006383
Application 13/223,963
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention generally "relates to fuel systems of
internal combustion engines for vehicles and, more particularly, [to] a fuel
pressure regulator of compact configuration and having a reduced number of
components." Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Independent
claim 1 (Claims Appendix), reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal (paragraphing added):
1. A fuel pressure regulator for a fuel delivery system of
an internal combustion engine, the pressure regulator
compnsmg:
[(a)] a unitary housing having a wall defining an interior
communicating with first and second opposing ends, the first
end including an inlet opening, and the second end including at
least one outlet opening so that fuel can enter the inlet opening,
move through the interior and exit from the outlet opening in a
single direction, the housing defining an integral valve seat
surface in the interior,
[ (b)] a generally cylindrical cover provided at the second
end and disposed entirely within the interior of the housing, the
cover including at least one hole extending longitudinally
through the cover that communicates the outlet opening with
the interior of the housing,
[(c)] a valve structure, movable adjacent to the wall and
within the interior, to control fuel flow between the inlet
opening and outlet opening, a first end of the valve structure
defining a cup portion having an interior space, the valve
structure having a generally conical surface that is constructed
and arranged to engage the valve seat surface to close the inlet
opening, and
[ ( d)] a spring disposed at least partially in the interior
space of the cup portion and engaged between the valve
2
Appeal2014-006383
Application 13/223,963
structure and the cover so as to force the valve structure to close
the inlet opening,
[(e)] wherein the valve structure and spring are
constructed and arranged so that when the pressure of fuel at
the inlet opening is greater than the force exerted by the spring,
the fuel pushes the valve structure against the bias of the spring
and away from sealed engagement with the valve seat surface
so that fuel flows solely around and past a periphery of the
valve structure between the valve structure and the wall to the
outlet opening without flowing through the interior space of the
cup portion, until the force of the spring is greater than the
pressure of the fuel, with the spring returning the valve
structure to sealed engagement with the seat surface, closing the
inlet opening.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10-12, 14--18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warlick (US 6,668,856 B2,
iss. Dec. 30, 2003) and Salisbury (US 3,036,594, iss. May 29, 1962). Final
Act. 3; Ans. 2.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Warlick, Salisbury, and Bennet (US 2006/0108005 Al,
pub. May 25, 2006). Final Act. 7; Ans. 6.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-006383
Application 13/223,963
ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend the rejection of claim 1 is in error because, in
relevant part, Warlick, upon which the Examiner relies, does not disclose a
valve structure moving adjacent to the wall of the housing and within the
defined interior such that when the pressure at the inlet is greater than the
spring force, the valve structure is pushed "away from sealed engagement
with the valve seat surface so that fuel flows solely around and past a
periphery of the valve structure between the valve structure and the wall to
the outlet opening without flowing through the interior space of the cup
portion" as required by limitations ( c) and ( e) of claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 4--5. We agree.
The Examiner finds that Warlick discloses "a valve structure (14),
movable within the interior (cavity 20)." Final Act. 3--4 (citing Figure 5).
The Examiner also finds that "the 'wall' as recited in claim 1 is readable as
the surface of wall 32 and/or the surface of each groove 36" (Ans. 10), and
that the valve structure is "moveable adjacent to the wall" at surface 32 and
adjacent to the lateral surface of groove 36 (id. at 11 ).
We find persuasive the Appellants' argument that "due to the structure
of War[l]ick, fuel does not flow solely around and past a periphery of the
valve structure between the valve structure and the wall to the outlet opening
as claimed, since fuel is intended to flow only through the grooves or
channels 36." Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that
when the pressure at the inlet is greater than the spring force,
the fuel pushes the valve structure (14) against the bias of the
spring (50) and away from sealed engagement with the valve seat
surface (24) so that fuel flows solely around a periphery of the
valve structure (14; by flowing about the periphery of the
4
Appeal2014-006383
Application 13/223,963
cylindrical surface of the valve 14, some passing through channel
36, filling the area of cavity 20 between the downstream side of
the valve 14 and the upstream side of the "cover" 16) to the outlet
(downstream) opening (e.g. through plate 16 holes 30 to the fluid
passage beyond the plate 16).
Final Act. 4. However, as the Appellants note (see Appeal Br. 4--5), Warlick
discloses that the tight clearance between the wall and valve provides that no
substantial fuel flow occurs between the valve and wall, but rather that the
grooves are provided for fuel to flow there through. See Warlick, col. 2, 11.
56-67. Even assuming the Examiner's finding that it may be inferred from
Warlick that some fuel must flow between the valve and wall (see Ans. 10),
the flow is then between the valve and the wall as well as the valve and the
grooves. The flow is not "solely around and past a periphery of the valve
structure between the valve structure and the wall to the outlet opening," as
required by the claim.
Thus, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claim 11 recites limitations
substantially similar to limitations ( c) and ( e) of claim 1, and thus, for
reasons similar to those discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 11. We, therefore, also do not sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10, 12-18, and 20. Cf In re Fritch,
972 F.2d. 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if
the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious").
5
Appeal2014-006383
Application 13/223,963
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8, 10-18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are not sustained.
REVERSED
6