13865597 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

Ex Parte HERRERA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 2018

13865597 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/865,597 04/18/2013 DANIEL HERRERA 152048 7590 05/25/2018 Delphi Technologies IP Limited 5825 Innovation Drive Delphi Technologies Legal Staff - MIC 480-415-154 Troy, MI 48098 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. DP-320643 2948 EXAMINER CASH, THOMAS R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2018 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): j oshua. m.haines@delphi.com us.patent@delphi.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL HERRERA, JOHN G. FISCHER, MOHAMMED ASLAM, and GUSTA VO GONZALEZ Appeal2017-007907 Application 13/865,597 1 Technology Center 3700 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Delphi Technologies, Inc. Br. 3. Appeal2017-007907 Application 13/865,597 According to Appellants, their invention relates "to a fuel pump with an electric motor [having] a motor frame that defines an upper bushing and maintains a coaxial relationship of a lower bushing with the upper bushing." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 15 are the only independent claims on appeal. We reproduce claim 1, below, as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A fluid pump comprising: an inlet for introducing fluid into said fluid pump; an outlet for discharging fluid from said fluid pump; a motor having a shaft that rotates about an axis, said shaft having an upper end and a lower end; a motor frame having a top section, a base section, and a plurality of legs axially separating said top section and said base section; and a lower bushing for radially supporting said lower end of said shaft; wherein said top section defines an upper bushing therein for radially supporting said upper end of said shaft; and wherein said base section maintains a coaxial relationship between said lower bushing and said upper bushing. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1-13 and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 2003/0039539 Al, pub. Feb. 27, 2003) (hereinafter "Harris") and Baines (US 4,851,729, iss. July 25, 1989). The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, as unpatentable over Harris, Baines, and Fisher et al. (US 7,874,816 B2, iss. Jan. 25, 2011) (hereinafter "Fis her"). 2 Appeal2017-007907 Application 13/865,597 ANALYSIS Obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 15. and their dependent claims 2-13 and 16-23 Regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Baines apertured end web 25 and motor bearing 11 disclose the claimed "top section" and "bushing," respectively. See, e.g., Final Action 3, 6. Further, the Examiner finds that Baines's end web 25 "defines" motor bearing 11, also as claimed. See, e.g., id. Appellants argue that the rejection is in error because Baines' end web "25 does not define an upper bushing . . . . Instead, [end web] 25 receives ... motor bearing 11." Br. 9 (emphases added). 2 Based on our review, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs, and, thus, we sustain the rejection. More specifically, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs in finding that Baines' s apertured end web 25 "defines" motor bearing 11, such as by providing evidence or a line of technical reasoning tending to establish that the Examiner is incorrect. For example, in the Appeal Brief, Appellants do not point to anything in their Specification which describes how their motor-frame top section "defines" an upper bushing. Thus, Appellants' argument only amounts to an unsupported conclusion that there is a difference between defining and receiving a bushing, and that Baines receives rather than defines a bushing. Further, our review indicates that although Appellants' Specification states that the motor frame "defines" an upper bushing (see, e.g., Spec. i-fi-f l, 4, 20), the 2 Appellants do not argue that the Examiner errs in finding that Baines' s motor bearing 11 discloses the claimed bushing. 3 Appeal2017-007907 Application 13/865,597 Specification does not explain what "defines" means, and does not, for example, differentiate "defines" from "receives." Conversely, a relevant dictionary definition of "define" is "to fix or mark the limits of." MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, http://m- w.com/dictionary/define (last retrieved May 14, 2018). When Baines's apertured end web 25 "receives" bearing 11 (Br. 9), the aperture operates to "mark the limits of' bearing 11. Thus, based on the foregoing, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1. Therefore, we sustain claim l's rejection, as well as the rejection of its dependent claims 2-13 that Appellants do not argue separately. See, e.g., Br. 7. Further, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-23, which Appellants also argue with claim 1. See, e.g., id. Obviousness rejection ofdependent claim 14 Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 14, which depends from independent claim 1, is in error because Fisher does not remedy the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Br. 12. Inasmuch as we sustain claim l's rejection, however, we also sustain claim 14's rejection. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-23. 4 Appeal2017-007907 Application 13/865,597 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5