Ex Parte Hoang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

11658464 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/658,464 01/24/2007
24972 7590 09/12/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anh-Tuan Hoang
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.
BOSC.P4616US/1000211443 6081
EXAMINER
CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANH-TUAN HOANG
Appeal2018-000538
Application 11/658,464
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to a "fuel injector for
fuel-injection systems of internal combustion engines." Spec, Abstract.
1 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest ... is ROBERT
BOSCH GmbH." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000538
Application 11/658,464
Claim 8 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce
claim 8 as representative of the appealed claims.
8. A fuel injector for a fuel-injection system of an
internal combustion engine for injection of a fuel, comprising
a solenoid coil,
an armature cooperating with the solenoid coil,
a valve sleeve, and
a support tube situated in the valve sleeve and used as
inner pole for the solenoid coil,
wherein the valve sleeve is made of a material having low
magnetic permeability in order to guide a magnetic flux between
a valve housing and the armature and also between the valve
housing and the support tube,
wherein the material is a powder composite material
containing iron and non-magnetic components;
wherein the saturation induction of the valve sleeve
amounts to less than 1 Tesla;
wherein the valve sleeve extends exclusively downstream
of a height of the fuel injector at which a contact tag is mounted,
wherein the valve sleeve is configured to seal the solenoid
coil from the fuel without the aid of additional seals.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nishitani et al. (GB 2 262 659 A, pub. June 23,
1993) ("Nishitani").
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishitani.
2
Appeal2018-000538
Application 11/658,464
ANALYSIS
Both of the Examiner's rejections of independent claim 8 (see, e.g.,
Non-Final Action 2-3) are based on a finding that Nishitani's fixed
core/non-magnetic portion 11 (see, e.g., Nishitani 1, 11. 15-22; 1, 1. 25-2,
1. 1) discloses the claimed "valve sleeve [that] is configured to seal the
solenoid coil from the fuel without the aid of additional seals" (Appeal Br.,
Claims App. (Claim 8)). Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is in
error because although "[i]ndependent claim 8 recites ... the valve sleeve is
configured to seal the solenoid coil from the fuel without the aid of
additional seals[,] ... Nishitani discloses fixed cores[, including core 11,
which] are sealed, at least in part, by metallic seals 16 and 1 7." Appeal
Br. 2.
In response, the Examiner finds that because Nishitani is "a British
patent, ... while [Nishitani] might state [ that components 16 and 17 are]
'metallic seals,' they are [instead] merely welds. A weld is not a fluid seal
and is never treated as such." Answer 2. Based on our review of the record,
there is inadequate support for the Examiner's finding that Nishitani' s
metallic seals 16 and 17 are welds, rather than seals-instead there is only
the Examiner's statement to that effect. Thus, based on our review of the
record, the Examiner fails to support adequately the finding that Nishitani' s
fixed core 11 is not sealed by metallic seals 16 and 1 7, such that fixed
core 11 seals without the aid of additional seals, as claimed.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain either rejection
of claim 8. We also do not sustain either rejection of claims 11, 14, 15, 18,
and 23 that depend from claim 8.
3
Appeal2018-000538
Application 11/658,464
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner anticipation and obviousness rejections
of claims 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 23.
REVERSED
4