Ex Parte Hicks

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

12615073 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017)

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.
12/615,073 11/09/2009 Paul G. Hicks 507467 9816
53609 7590 01/26/2017
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2017 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL G. HICKS
Appeal 2015-003790
Application 12/615,073
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—23. Appeal Br. 4. Claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-003790
Application 12/615,073
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A fuel injector apparatus, comprising:
an injector body having a bore therethrough, the bore
defining a fuel manifold;
a variable-area injector arrangement having a pintle with
a conical head and a pintle spring operatively connected to the
injector body in such a manner that the spring urges the conical
head to seal against a variable-area exit orifice located at one
end of the body to thereby prevent the passage of pressurized
fuel through the variable-area exit orifice, and such that
application of pressurized fuel within the injector body causes
the pintle to move such that the conical head of the pintle is
moved out of contact with the variable-area exit orifice of the
body as a function of the pressure of the pressurized fuel in the
injector body, to thereby provide a corresponding variable area
for passage of the pressurized fuel through the variable-area
exit orifice about the conical head of the pintle; and
a fuel swirier positioned within the manifold and
configured to create a swirling action in the flow of pressurized
fuel within the fuel manifold, wherein the fuel manifold is
upstream of the variable-area exit orifice.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 10, 11, and 14—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Xu (US 6,042,028, iss. Mar. 28, 2000).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Xu and Howell (US 5,930,999, iss. Aug. 3, 1999).
Claims 7, 12, 13, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Xu and Young (US 5,058,808, iss. Oct. 22, 1991).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Xu, Young, and Bailey (US 3,444,886, iss. May 20, 1969).
2
Appeal 2015-003790
Application 12/615,073
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Xu and Tilton (US 5,713,327, iss. Feb. 3, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 10, 11, and 14—20 as anticipated by Xu
The Examiner found that Xu teaches a fuel injector, as recited in
independent claims 1 and 17, including pintle 26 with conical head 32, and
variable-area exit orifice 36 to prevent passage of pressurized fuel “such that
application of pressurized fuel within the injector body causes the pintle to
move such that the conical head of the pintle is moved out of contact with
the variable-area exit orifice of the body as a function of the pressure of the
pressurized fuel in the injector body.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner found
that Xu is capable of performing this claimed function because Xu has all of
the claimed structure of the conical head, exit orifice, and pressurized fuel.
Id. at 6—7. The Examiner reasoned that pressurized fuel moving through the
injector valve of Xu inherently acts on this structure at the same time that the
solenoid actuator acts on the injector valve so that the pintle and its conical
head are moved out of contact with the exit orifice as a function of both the
pressurized fuel and the solenoid actuator. Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that Xu is not capable of performing the claimed
function of using the pressure of pressurized fuel to cause the conical head
of the pintle to move out of contact with the variable-area exit orifice of the
body because it uses a magnetic actuator to open and close the pintle and
thus has a different structure than Xu. See Appeal Br. 11—14. Appellant
also argues that Xu does not inherently disclose the claimed function but
describes a different function than is claimed. Reply Br. 6—8. As a result,
Appellant argues that fluid pressure will not open Xu’s valve. Id. at 9.
3
Appeal 2015-003790
Application 12/615,073
The Examiner did not have a sound basis to find that Xu inherently
performs the claimed function of applying pressurized fluid to cause the
pintle and its conical head to move out of contact with the variable-area exit
of the body. “Inevitability is at the heart of inherency; ‘that a certain thing
may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” Howmedica
Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 640 Fed. Appx. 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(non-precedential) (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir.
1999)). Features of an apparatus may be recited structurally or functionally.
In reSchreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claimed fuel injector uses pintle spring 124 to seal conical head
118 of pintle 114 against variable-area exit orifice 134 and fuel pressure in
the injector to move pintle 114 and its conical head 118 out of contact with
variable-area exit orifice 134. Spec. 126, Fig. 2.
Xu uses pintle spring 38 to urge valve head 32 against valve seat 36,
but Xu uses magnetic actuator/solenoid 42 to open pintle valve 26 and assist
spring 38 in quickly closing the valve at the end of an injection period. Xu,
3:38-44; Appeal Br. 12—14. Actuator 42 opens the valve a predetermined
amount to create a gap of about 30 microns between valve seat 36 and valve
head 32. Xu, 4:26—33. When the valve is opened fully to a constant gap of
about 30 microns, the pressure drop across the nozzle forces a thin sheet of
fuel out of the nozzle as a hollow cone spray. Id. at 2:21—26.
The Examiner’s finding that Xu’s pintle valve is opened even partially
as a function of the pressurized fuel is not supported by a preponderance of
evidence. Final Act. 2—3, 6—7; Ans. 3^4. The Examiner has not identified a
disclosure in Xu that the nozzle opens as a function, even in part, of the fuel
pressure. See Final Act. 2, 6—7; Ans. 3.
4
Appeal 2015-003790
Application 12/615,073
Xu uses solenoid actuator 42 to open the valve by a predetermined
amount to control the size and pattern of the fuel droplets in conjunction
with the pressure drop through the nozzle. See Xu, 2:9-44, 4:22—33.
High pressure fuel at 10 MPa is delivered to the injector
and passes through internal passages with a negligible pressure
drop until reaching the nozzle assembly. . . . When the valve is
fully opened, about half of the fuel pressure, 5 MPa, is consumed
in passing through the swirler holes and developing the swirl
motion. The remaining 5 MPa pressure drop occurs at the sealing
point of the valve head against the valve seat. When the valve is
opened fully to a constant seat gap of about 30 microns, the
pressure drop forces a very thin liquid sheet of fuel out of the
nozzle assembly as a hollow cone which quickly develops, after
injection to the combustion chamber, into a hollow cone spray of
small fuel droplets injected with a swirl that helps to control
spray penetration.
Id. at 2:9—26 (emphasis added). This passage indicates that half of the fuel
pressure drops across swirler 24. The other half is used in passing through
the nozzle when the valve is fully opened. Xu does not disclose that the fuel
pressure plays any role in opening the valve. The force of spring 38 by itself
is sufficient to close the valve against fluid pressure, but solenoid actuator 42
helps it to close faster. See id. at 3:38-44. The further statement in Xu, that
when the valve is opened by magnetic solenoid 42, the pressure drop across
the valve head forces a thin liquid sheet of fuel out of the nozzle provides no
suggestion that fuel pressure helps to open the valve. Id. at 2:21—24.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner did not have a sound basis
for finding that Xu has structure similar to the claimed fuel injector, or that
Xu’s injector is capable of performing the function recited in claims 1 and
17. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 or
their dependent claims 2, 4—6, 10, 11, 14—16, and 18—20.
5
Appeal 2015-003790
Application 12/615,073
Dependent claims 3, 7—9, 12, 13, and 21—23
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 3, 7—9, 12, 13, and 21—23 as
unpatentable over Xu in combination with one or more of Howell, Young,
Bailey, and Tilton. See Final Act. 4—6. The Examiner relied on Howell,
Young, Bailey, and Tilton to teach features of these dependent claims and
not to overcome deficiencies of Xu noted above as to independent claims 1
and 17. See id.', Appeal Br. 15—17. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
these claims.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—23.
REVERSED
6